§ The result
iCIMS leads UKG on 6 of the 7 criteria.
iCIMS sits 11 points above UKG under rubric v1.0, 55 against 44, with both filed under ATS-integrated. iCIMS leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so UKG is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 iCIMS leads is FRIA Support, iCIMS 38 to UKG 35. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — iCIMS 68, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
iCIMS and UKG are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | iCIMS | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2000 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · UKG 30
6.8 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · UKG 48
2.0 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · UKG 38
0.5 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · UKG 35
0.4 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +11.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +11.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 30 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 44 (F) | +11 | +11.1 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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