§ The result
UKG leads Qureos by 11 points.
UKG, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 11 points above Qureos, filed under Screening: 44 against 33 under rubric v1.0. UKG leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Qureos leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The advantage UKG holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Qureos 28, UKG 48, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points UKG gains 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
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
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AE | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · UKG 48
4.0 weighted points to UKG
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · UKG 30
3.2 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · UKG 56
1.8 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · UKG 35
1.5 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · UKG 38
0.4 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · UKG 52
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 48 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 30 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 56 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 44 (F) | -11 | -10.9 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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