HomeCompareOleeo vs SeekOut

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Oleeo vs SeekOut

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Oleeo leads SeekOut on 5 of the 7 criteria.

Oleeo scores 40 and SeekOut 34 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Oleeo leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so SeekOut is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Oleeo leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Oleeo 40 to SeekOut 35. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Oleeo 55, SeekOut 35, 8% weight), but it accounts for only 27% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Oleeo is filed under ATS-integrated AI, SeekOut under Candidate sourcing 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.

RecordOleeoSeekOut
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersGBUS
Founded19952017

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 8% weight · 27% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Oleeo 55 · SeekOut 35

    1.6 weighted points to Oleeo

  2. 15% weight · 53% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Oleeo 45 · SeekOut 35

    1.5 weighted points to Oleeo

  3. 12% weight · 73% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Oleeo 55 · SeekOut 45

    1.2 weighted points to Oleeo

  4. 20% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Oleeo 40 · SeekOut 35

    1.0 weighted points to Oleeo

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Oleeo 30 · SeekOut 25

    0.6 weighted points to Oleeo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +5.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.9.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Oleeo minus SeekOut.

CategoryWeightOleeoSeekOutΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4035+5+1.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%4040--
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4535+10+1.5
Human Oversight Design12%5545+10+1.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%3025+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%5535+20+1.6
Total100%40 (F)34 (F)+6+5.9

§ 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.

CriterionWeightOleeoSeekOut
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%20Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%106Sources on the vendor's own domain54Sources on the vendor's own domain

Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; SeekOut has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 5 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 25 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 9 for SeekOut, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Oleeo last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
SeekOut last reviewed
May 21, 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.