§ The result
Pin takes the total, impress.ai takes more of the criteria.
Pin (Sourcing) edges impress.ai (Screening) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 40 to 38. impress.ai leads more of the criteria than Pin — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Pin leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Pin. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (impress.ai 22, Pin 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Pin holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Pin
Pin is an AI recruiting agent that searches a database of 850M+ candidate profiles, scores and ranks candidates for fit, can automatically screen out non-matches (each with a one-line reason), and runs outreach and interview scheduling.
§ The record
impress.ai is filed under Screening AI, Pin under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only impress.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | impress.ai | Pin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Low |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2024 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · Pin 35
2.3 weighted points to Pin
12% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · Pin 45
1.6 weighted points to Pin
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · Pin 30
1.0 weighted points to impress.ai
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
impress.ai 25 · Pin 30
0.8 weighted points to Pin
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · Pin 50
0.8 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
impress.ai 52 · Pin 50
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · Pin 55
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus Pin.
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | Pin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 45 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 40 (F) | -2 | -2.4 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | Pin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 32 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Pin has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 37 for Pin, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pin 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