§ The result
2 points separate Rippling and Plum.
Rippling (ATS-integrated) edges Plum (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 54. Rippling leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Plum leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Plum — Plum 83, Rippling 42, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
Vendor profile
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Plum is filed under Assessment AI, Rippling under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Plum is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Plum | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | CA | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Plum 83 · Rippling 42
7.4 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Plum 58 · Rippling 73
3.0 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Plum 28 · Rippling 45
2.5 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Plum 54 · Rippling 64
1.5 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Plum 36 · Rippling 47
1.3 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Plum 52 · Rippling 60
1.0 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Plum 63 · Rippling 64
0.1 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.8 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 -2.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Plum minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Plum | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 73 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 42 | +41 | +7.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 64 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 47 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 64 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 56 (F) | -2 | -2.0 |
§ 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 | Plum | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 32 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Plum last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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