§ The result
Rippling leads isolved by 9 points.
Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Rippling on 56 and isolved on 47, 9 points apart. Rippling leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while isolved leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (isolved 50, Rippling 73) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 47% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds across the 5 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
isolved and Rippling are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only isolved is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | isolved | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Rippling 73
4.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Rippling 45
2.3 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Rippling 64
1.6 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
isolved 56 · Rippling 64
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Rippling 60
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Rippling 42
0.5 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 73 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 45 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 64 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 47 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 56 (F) | -9 | -9.2 |
§ 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 | isolved | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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