§ The result
4 points separate RippleMatch and Humanly.
RippleMatch (Sourcing) edges Humanly (Screening) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of RippleMatch: RippleMatch is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Humanly on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Humanly 40, RippleMatch 53) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 42% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
Humanly is filed under Screening AI, RippleMatch under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Humanly is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Humanly | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Humanly 40 · RippleMatch 53
2.3 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Humanly 40 · RippleMatch 50
1.5 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Humanly 35 · RippleMatch 27
1.2 weighted points to Humanly
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Humanly 30 · RippleMatch 37
0.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Humanly 52 · RippleMatch 60
0.6 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Humanly 45 · RippleMatch 46
0.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Humanly 58 · RippleMatch 57
0.1 weighted points to Humanly
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 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 -4.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Humanly minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | Humanly | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 46 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 53 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 37 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -4.2 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Humanly last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 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