§ The result
4 points separate UKG and Personio.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, UKG edges Personio by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 40. UKG leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Personio leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Personio 48, UKG 38) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Personio 40, UKG 48), the second being 34% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
Vendor profile
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Personio 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.
| Record | Personio | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Personio 40 · UKG 48
1.6 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Personio 48 · UKG 38
1.2 weighted points to Personio
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Personio 25 · UKG 30
0.9 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Personio 30 · UKG 35
0.8 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Personio 52 · UKG 56
0.6 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Personio 48 · UKG 52
0.5 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Personio 50 · UKG 55
0.4 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.5 — 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 -4 beside that -3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Personio minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Personio | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 44 (F) | -4 | -3.5 |
§ 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 | Personio | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Personio, across 5 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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.
§ Where next