§ The result
4 points separate Humanly and impress.ai.
Within the Screening cohort, Humanly edges impress.ai by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 38. Humanly leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while impress.ai leads 3, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Humanly 40, impress.ai 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Humanly holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Humanly and impress.ai are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Humanly | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Humanly 40 · impress.ai 22
3.2 weighted points to Humanly
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Humanly 40 · impress.ai 55
2.3 weighted points to impress.ai
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Humanly 45 · impress.ai 35
2.0 weighted points to Humanly
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Humanly 35 · impress.ai 25
1.5 weighted points to Humanly
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Humanly 58 · impress.ai 52
0.7 weighted points to Humanly
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Humanly 52 · impress.ai 58
0.5 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Humanly 30 · impress.ai 32
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Humanly minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Humanly | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 35 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 22 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 38 (F) | +4 | +4.5 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Humanly | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Humanly last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next