§ The result
2 points separate softgarden and Oleeo.
Under rubric v1.0, softgarden and Oleeo finish 2 points apart, 42 to 40, as two ATS-integrated entries. softgarden leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Oleeo leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, and Oleeo holds it (Oleeo 40, softgarden 22, 18% weight), worth 100% of the weighted advantage Oleeo builds across the 1 criterion 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Oleeo and softgarden 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.
| Record | Oleeo | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 1995 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oleeo 40 · softgarden 22
3.2 weighted points to Oleeo
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Oleeo 30 · softgarden 44
1.7 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oleeo 45 · softgarden 54
1.3 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oleeo 25 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oleeo 40 · softgarden 42
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oleeo 55 · softgarden 58
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oleeo 55 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oleeo minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Oleeo | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 22 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 54 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 44 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 42 (F) | -2 | -1.5 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oleeo last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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