HomeCompareOleeo vs TestDome

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Oleeo vs TestDome

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Oleeo takes the total, TestDome takes more of the criteria.

Oleeo (ATS-integrated) edges TestDome (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 40 to 37. TestDome leads more of the criteria than Oleeo — 3 to 2 — 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, TestDome 15) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 93% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 2 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Oleeo is filed under ATS-integrated AI, TestDome under Assessment 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. Only TestDome is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordOleeoTestDome
Price tierEnterpriseLow
HeadquartersGBHR
Founded19952013

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 70% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Oleeo 40 · TestDome 15

    4.5 weighted points to Oleeo

  2. 15% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Oleeo 45 · TestDome 50

    0.8 weighted points to TestDome

  3. 15% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Oleeo 25 · TestDome 28

    0.4 weighted points to TestDome

  4. 8% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Oleeo 55 · TestDome 60

    0.4 weighted points to TestDome

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

    Human Oversight Design

    Oleeo 55 · TestDome 52

    0.4 weighted points to Oleeo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +3.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.3.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Oleeo minus TestDome.

CategoryWeightOleeoTestDomeΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4040--
Bias Audit Transparency18%4015+25+4.5
FRIA Support15%2528-3-0.4
Data Governance Disclosure15%4550-5-0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5552+3+0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3030--
Customer Documentation8%5560-5-0.4
Total100%40 (F)37 (F)+3+3.3

§ 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.

CriterionWeightOleeoTestDome
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%11Sources on the vendor's own domain31—
FRIA Support15%01—11—
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%20Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%106Sources on the vendor's own domain275Sources on the vendor's own domain

Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; TestDome has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 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 TestDome, across 1 distinct source domain.

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