§ The result
Plum leads UKG by 10 points.
Plum sits 10 points above UKG under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 44 — with Plum filed under Assessment and UKG under ATS-integrated. Plum and UKG each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Plum holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Plum 83, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 3 criteria 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
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
Plum is filed under Assessment AI, UKG under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Plum is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Plum | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | CA | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Plum 83 · UKG 30
9.5 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Plum 58 · UKG 48
2.0 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Plum 28 · UKG 35
1.1 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Plum 63 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Plum 54 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Plum 36 · UKG 38
0.2 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +10.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Plum minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Plum | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 30 | +53 | +9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 38 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 44 (F) | +10 | +10.6 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Plum | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; 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 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Plum 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.
§ Where next