§ The result
isolved leads Paradox by 6 points.
isolved scores 47 and Paradox 41 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Scheduling cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of isolved: isolved is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Paradox on Bias Audit Transparency. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (isolved 47, Paradox 35) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (isolved 50, Paradox 40), 29% of the weighted advantage isolved builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
isolved is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | isolved | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Paradox 40
2.0 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · Paradox 35
1.4 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Paradox 45
1.2 weighted points to isolved
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Paradox 50
0.9 weighted points to Paradox
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
isolved 56 · Paradox 45
0.9 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Paradox 25
0.8 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Paradox 50
0.6 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 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 +6.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 45 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 35 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 45 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 41 (F) | +6 | +6.0 |
§ 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 | isolved | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox 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