§ The result
Textkernel leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Textkernel finishes 18 points clear of Qureos under rubric v1.0 — 51 against 33 — across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Textkernel takes all 7 criteria and Qureos none of them; the nearest contest is Post-Market Monitoring, Qureos 35 to Textkernel 40. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Qureos 12, Textkernel 55) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 43% of the weighted advantage Textkernel holds 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Textkernel under Candidate sourcing 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 | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AE | NL |
| Founded | 2021 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Textkernel 55
7.7 weighted points to Textkernel
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Textkernel 55
5.4 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Textkernel 55
1.6 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · Textkernel 32
1.1 weighted points to Textkernel
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Textkernel 62
0.8 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Textkernel 60
0.7 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Textkernel 40
0.6 weighted points to Textkernel
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -18.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 55 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 55 | -43 | -7.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 60 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 51 (F) | -18 | -18.0 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel 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