§ The result
UKG leads impress.ai by 6 points.
UKG scores 44 and impress.ai 38 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. UKG leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while impress.ai leads 1, including Customer Documentation, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — impress.ai 35, UKG 48 — and at a 20% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
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
impress.ai is filed under Screening AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · UKG 48
2.6 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
impress.ai 25 · UKG 35
1.5 weighted points to UKG
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · UKG 30
1.4 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · UKG 38
0.7 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 44 (F) | -6 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; 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 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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