§ The result
softgarden leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, softgarden, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 42 and Qureos, filed under Screening, on 33, 9 points apart. softgarden takes all 7 criteria from Qureos without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Human Oversight Design, Qureos 54 to softgarden 58. The advantage softgarden holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Qureos 28, softgarden 42, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 31% of the weighted points softgarden gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Qureos | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AE | DE |
| Founded | 2021 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · softgarden 42
2.8 weighted points to softgarden
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · softgarden 22
1.8 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · softgarden 54
1.5 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · softgarden 44
1.1 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 22 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 54 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 42 (F) | -9 | -8.9 |
§ 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 | Qureos | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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