§ The result
Oleeo takes the total, Recruiterflow takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Oleeo and Recruiterflow finish 4 points apart, 40 to 36, as two ATS-integrated entries. Recruiterflow leads more of the criteria than Oleeo — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Oleeo leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Oleeo. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Oleeo 40, Recruiterflow 18) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
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
Oleeo and Recruiterflow are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Oleeo is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Oleeo | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1995 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oleeo 40 · Recruiterflow 18
4.0 weighted points to Oleeo
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oleeo 40 · Recruiterflow 33
1.4 weighted points to Oleeo
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oleeo 25 · Recruiterflow 30
0.8 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oleeo 55 · Recruiterflow 58
0.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Oleeo 30 · Recruiterflow 33
0.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oleeo 45 · Recruiterflow 44
0.1 weighted points to Oleeo
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oleeo 55 · Recruiterflow 56
0.1 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oleeo minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Oleeo | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 18 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 44 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 36 (F) | +4 | +4.0 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oleeo 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.
§ Where next