HomeCompareKeka vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Keka vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

UKG leads Keka by 7 points.

Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts UKG on 44 and Keka on 37, 7 points apart. Keka takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for UKG, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Keka 30, UKG 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 5 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Keka and UKG 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.

RecordKekaUKG
Price tierLowEnterprise
HeadquartersINUS
Founded20142020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 48% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Keka 30 · UKG 48

    3.6 weighted points to UKG

  2. 18% weight · 72% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Keka 20 · UKG 30

    1.8 weighted points to UKG

  3. 15% weight · 84% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Keka 50 · UKG 56

    0.9 weighted points to UKG

  4. 15% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Keka 30 · UKG 35

    0.8 weighted points to UKG

  5. 12% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Keka 50 · UKG 52

    0.2 weighted points to UKG

  6. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Keka 40 · UKG 38

    0.2 weighted points to Keka

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Keka minus UKG.

CategoryWeightKekaUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3048-18-3.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2030-10-1.8
FRIA Support15%3035-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5056-6-0.9
Human Oversight Design12%5052-2-0.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%4038+2+0.2
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%37 (F)44 (F)-7-7.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightKekaUKG
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Sources on the vendor's own domain02—
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%51Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%71Sources on the vendor's own domain02—
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%61Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%287Sources on the vendor's own domain68Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

Keka has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Keka, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Keka last reviewed
September 25, 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.