HomeCompareOleeo vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Oleeo vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

4 points separate UKG and Oleeo.

Within the ATS-integrated cohort, UKG edges Oleeo by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 40. UKG leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Oleeo leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Oleeo takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, Oleeo 40 to UKG 30, 83% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Data Governance Disclosure, Oleeo 45 to UKG 56.

§ The record

Oleeo and UKG 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.

RecordOleeoUKG
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersGBUS
Founded19952020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 23% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Oleeo 40 · UKG 30

    1.8 weighted points to Oleeo

  2. 15% weight · 44% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Oleeo 45 · UKG 56

    1.6 weighted points to UKG

  3. 20% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Oleeo 40 · UKG 48

    1.6 weighted points to UKG

  4. 15% weight · 83% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Oleeo 25 · UKG 35

    1.5 weighted points to UKG

  5. 12% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Oleeo 30 · UKG 38

    1.0 weighted points to UKG

  6. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Oleeo 55 · UKG 52

    0.4 weighted points to Oleeo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 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 -3.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Oleeo minus UKG.

CategoryWeightOleeoUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4048-8-1.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%4030+10+1.8
FRIA Support15%2535-10-1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%4556-11-1.6
Human Oversight Design12%5552+3+0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3038-8-1.0
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%40 (F)44 (F)-4-3.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightOleeoUKG
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 domain02
FRIA Support15%0111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%20Sources on the vendor's own domain02
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%106Sources on the vendor's own domain68Audit 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

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