§ The result
iCIMS leads Intervue.io on all 7 criteria.
iCIMS finishes 24 points clear of Intervue.io under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 31 — across the ATS-integrated and Video interview cohorts. iCIMS takes all 7 criteria and Intervue.io none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, iCIMS 58 to Intervue.io 54. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (iCIMS 68, Intervue.io 12) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 42% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Vendor profile
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
§ The record
iCIMS is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Intervue.io under Video interview AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Intervue.io is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iCIMS | Intervue.io |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2000 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · Intervue.io 12
10.1 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · Intervue.io 28
6.0 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iCIMS 56 · Intervue.io 38
2.7 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · Intervue.io 22
2.4 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · Intervue.io 30
1.4 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · Intervue.io 50
1.0 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · Intervue.io 54
0.5 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +24.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +24 beside that +24.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus Intervue.io.
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | Intervue.io | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 28 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 12 | +56 | +10.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 22 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 38 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 31 (F) | +24 | +24.1 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | Intervue.io | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Intervue.io 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