§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI takes the total, iCIMS takes more of the criteria.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Workday Recruiting AI edges iCIMS by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 56 to 55. iCIMS leads more of the criteria than Workday Recruiting AI — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Workday Recruiting AI leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Workday Recruiting AI. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — iCIMS 58, Workday Recruiting AI 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI holds across the 3 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
iCIMS and Workday Recruiting AI are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only iCIMS is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | iCIMS | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2000 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
2.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
1.4 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.8 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.8 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.4 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iCIMS 56 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.1 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 70 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 65 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 65 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 56 (F) | -1 | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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