§ The result
Plum leads ZipRecruiter by 14 points.
Plum, filed under Assessment, comes out 14 points above ZipRecruiter, filed under Sourcing: 54 against 40 under rubric v1.0. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Plum: Plum is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and ZipRecruiter on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Plum 83, ZipRecruiter 24 — and at an 18% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 5 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
ZipRecruiter
ZipRecruiter is an online employment marketplace whose AI matching engine sends employers' job postings out, alerts matched job seekers and invites them to apply, and labels and ranks applicants (for example as 'Great Match') in the employer's candidate dashboard.
§ The record
Plum is filed under Assessment AI, ZipRecruiter under Candidate sourcing 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 | ZipRecruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | CA | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Plum 83 · ZipRecruiter 24
10.6 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Plum 58 · ZipRecruiter 40
3.6 weighted points to Plum
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Plum 63 · ZipRecruiter 54
0.7 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Plum 36 · ZipRecruiter 40
0.5 weighted points to ZipRecruiter
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Plum 52 · ZipRecruiter 55
0.4 weighted points to ZipRecruiter
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Plum 54 · ZipRecruiter 52
0.3 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Plum 28 · ZipRecruiter 27
0.1 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Plum minus ZipRecruiter.
| Category | Weight | Plum | ZipRecruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 24 | +59 | +10.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 54 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 40 (F) | +14 | +14.6 |
§ 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 | ZipRecruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; ZipRecruiter has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for ZipRecruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain, and 33 for ZipRecruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Plum last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- ZipRecruiter 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.
§ Where next