§ 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.
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
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.
§ The record
isolved and Workable are both filed under ATS-integrated 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Workable 55
1.0 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Workable 62
0.8 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Workable 58
0.8 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · Workable 42
0.6 weighted points to isolved
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Workable 42
0.5 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.
| 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% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -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.
§ Where next