§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Intervue.io by 26 points.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) and Intervue.io (Video interview): 57 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), 31 for Intervue.io. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Juicebox (PeopleGPT): Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Intervue.io on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Intervue.io 12, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
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
Intervue.io 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 Intervue.io is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Intervue.io | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2020 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Intervue.io 12 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
13.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Intervue.io 28 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
4.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Intervue.io 30 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
3.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Intervue.io 38 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
2.7 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Intervue.io 22 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
1.9 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Intervue.io 50 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Intervue.io 54 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
0.5 weighted points to Intervue.io
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -26 beside that -25.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Intervue.io minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Intervue.io | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 52 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 84 | -72 | -13.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 56 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 55 | -25 | -3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 31 (F) | 57 (F) | -26 | -25.7 |
§ 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 | Intervue.io | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | — | 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% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 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 Intervue.io and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Intervue.io last reviewed
- September 25, 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.