§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads softgarden by 15 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) opens a 15-point lead on softgarden (ATS-integrated), 57 to 42. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Juicebox (PeopleGPT): Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and softgarden on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84, softgarden 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 71% 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 · softgarden 22
11.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 · softgarden 42
2.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 · softgarden 44
1.3 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50 · softgarden 58
1.0 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56 · softgarden 54
0.3 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +14.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Juicebox (PeopleGPT) minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 22 | +62 | +11.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 42 (F) | +15 | +14.7 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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.
§ Where next