§ The result
softgarden leads Recruiterflow on 5 of the 7 criteria.
softgarden finishes 6 points ahead of Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0, 42 to 36, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. Recruiterflow is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: softgarden takes 5, the remaining 2 are level, and the nearest of those 5 is Customer Documentation, Recruiterflow 56 to softgarden 58. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Recruiterflow 33, softgarden 44) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Recruiterflow 33, softgarden 42), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage softgarden holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
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
Recruiterflow and softgarden are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only softgarden is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Recruiterflow | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruiterflow 33 · softgarden 42
1.8 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Recruiterflow 44 · softgarden 54
1.5 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Recruiterflow 33 · softgarden 44
1.3 weighted points to softgarden
18% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruiterflow 18 · softgarden 22
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Recruiterflow 56 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruiterflow minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Recruiterflow | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 22 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 54 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 44 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 42 (F) | -6 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruiterflow 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