§ The result
Workable leads Qureos on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Workable (ATS-integrated) opens a 15-point lead on Qureos (Screening), 48 to 33. Qureos is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Workable takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Customer Documentation, Qureos 52 to Workable 56. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Qureos 12, Workable 42) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Qureos 28, Workable 55), the second being 36% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AE | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Workable 55
5.4 weighted points to Workable
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Workable 42
5.4 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Workable 58
2.1 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Workable 62
1.0 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Workable 42
0.8 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Workable 56
0.3 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -15.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 55 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 42 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 48 (F) | -15 | -15.0 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 6 | 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable 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: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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