§ The result
Tengai leads Qureos by 9 points.
Tengai scores 42 and Qureos 33 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Screening cohort. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Tengai: Tengai is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Qureos on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Qureos 12, Tengai 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 41% of the weighted advantage Tengai holds across the 6 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Qureos and Tengai are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Qureos | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AE | SE |
| Founded | 2021 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Tengai 33
3.8 weighted points to Tengai
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Tengai 45
3.4 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Tengai 50
0.9 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Tengai 58
0.5 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · Tengai 28
0.4 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Tengai 33
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Tengai 55
0.2 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.5 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 -9.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 33 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 42 (F) | -9 | -9.0 |
§ 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 | Qureos | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 37 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 77 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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