§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Interviewer.AI by 10 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sits 10 points above Interviewer.AI under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 47 — with Juicebox (PeopleGPT) filed under Sourcing and Interviewer.AI under Video interview. Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Interviewer.AI leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Interviewer.AI 35, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Interviewer.AI
Interviewer.AI is an asynchronous AI video interview platform that pre-screens and scores candidates by analyzing recorded video responses and resumes against role-specific success factors, producing an "AI Score" breakdown to help recruiters shortlist.
Vendor profile
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
Interviewer.AI is filed under Video interview AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Interviewer.AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Interviewer.AI | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Interviewer.AI 35 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
8.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Interviewer.AI 32 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
2.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Interviewer.AI 60 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
1.2 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Interviewer.AI 60 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
0.6 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Interviewer.AI 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Interviewer.AI minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Interviewer.AI | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 84 | -49 | -8.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 55 | -23 | -2.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 57 (F) | -10 | -9.9 |
§ 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 | Interviewer.AI | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Interviewer.AI has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Interviewer.AI, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Interviewer.AI last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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.