HomeCompareJobma vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Jobma vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Jobma leads UKG on 5 of the 7 criteria.

Jobma scores 49 and UKG 44 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Video interview and ATS-integrated cohorts. Jobma leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so UKG is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Jobma leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Jobma 44 to UKG 38. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Jobma 40, UKG 30, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Jobma holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Jobma is filed under Video interview AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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 Jobma is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordJobmaUKG
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20122020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 33% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Jobma 40 · UKG 30

    1.8 weighted points to Jobma

  2. 20% weight · 59% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Jobma 55 · UKG 48

    1.4 weighted points to Jobma

  3. 12% weight · 76% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Jobma 60 · UKG 52

    1.0 weighted points to Jobma

  4. 12% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Jobma 44 · UKG 38

    0.7 weighted points to Jobma

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Jobma 62 · UKG 55

    0.6 weighted points to Jobma

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Jobma minus UKG.

CategoryWeightJobmaUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5548+7+1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%4030+10+1.8
FRIA Support15%3535--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5656--
Human Oversight Design12%6052+8+1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%4438+6+0.7
Customer Documentation8%6255+7+0.6
Total100%49 (F)44 (F)+5+5.4

§ 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.

CriterionWeightJobmaUKG
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1102
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%30Sources on the vendor's own domain02
Post-Market Monitoring12%30Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%40Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%174Sources on the vendor's own domain68Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Jobma last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
UKG 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.