§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Recruiterflow by 21 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) opens a 21-point lead on Recruiterflow (ATS-integrated), 57 to 36. Recruiterflow takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84, Recruiterflow 18 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
Vendor profile
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 · Recruiterflow 18
11.9 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 · Recruiterflow 33
3.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 · Recruiterflow 33
2.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56 · Recruiterflow 44
1.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50 · Recruiterflow 58
1.0 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35 · Recruiterflow 30
0.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60 · Recruiterflow 56
0.3 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +20.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +21 beside that +20.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Juicebox (PeopleGPT) minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 18 | +66 | +11.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 44 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 33 | +22 | +2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 36 (F) | +21 | +20.2 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow last reviewed
- September 25, 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.