Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
isolved vs Workable
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
1 point separates Workable and isolved.
Workable holds a 1-point edge over isolved under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. isolved and Workable each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Workable holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (isolved 55, Workable 62) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (isolved 50, Workable 55), 39% of the weighted advantage Workable builds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- isolved3
- Workable3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Human Oversight Design55 vs 62
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
isolved and Workable are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | isolved | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight22% of the movement so far
isolved50Workable551.0 weighted points to Workable
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight41% of the movement so far
isolved55Workable620.8 weighted points to Workable
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight58% of the movement so far
isolved30Workable250.8 weighted points to isolved
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight75% of the movement so far
isolved53Workable580.8 weighted points to Workable
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight88% of the movement so far
isolved47Workable420.6 weighted points to isolved
- 6
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight100% of the movement so far
isolved45Workable420.5 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Workable, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 47F | 48F | -1 | -0.7 |
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 | isolved | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved and Workable 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: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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.