HomeCompareOleeo vs Paycor

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Oleeo vs Paycor

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Oleeo and Paycor tie at 40.

Oleeo and Paycor, both in the ATS-integrated cohort, tie at 40 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Oleeo leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Paycor 3, with 3 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Oleeo 40, Paycor 25 — and at an 18% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.

§ The record

Oleeo and Paycor 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.

RecordOleeoPaycor
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersGBUS
Founded19951990

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 57% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Oleeo 40 · Paycor 25

    2.7 weighted points to Oleeo

  2. 12% weight · 78% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Oleeo 30 · Paycor 38

    1.0 weighted points to Paycor

  3. 15% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Oleeo 45 · Paycor 50

    0.8 weighted points to Paycor

  4. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Oleeo 25 · Paycor 27

    0.3 weighted points to Paycor

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Oleeo minus Paycor.

CategoryWeightOleeoPaycorΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4040--
Bias Audit Transparency18%4025+15+2.7
FRIA Support15%2527-2-0.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%4550-5-0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5555--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3038-8-1.0
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%40 (F)40 (F)-+0.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightOleeoPaycor
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%11Sources on the vendor's own domain31—
FRIA Support15%01—11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%20Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%106Sources on the vendor's own domain246Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Paycor has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paycor sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 30 for Paycor, across 6 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Oleeo last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Paycor 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.