§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Workstream by 18 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) opens an 18-point lead on Workstream (Screening), 57 to 39. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Juicebox (PeopleGPT): Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Workstream on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84, Workstream 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 60% 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 · Workstream 20
11.5 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 · Workstream 40
2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 · Workstream 35
2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56 · Workstream 47
1.3 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50 · Workstream 61
1.3 weighted points to Workstream
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35 · Workstream 27
1.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60 · Workstream 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 +17.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +18 beside that +17.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Juicebox (PeopleGPT) minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 20 | +64 | +11.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 47 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 61 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 35 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 39 (F) | +18 | +17.9 |
§ 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) | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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