§ The result
Workable leads Recruiterflow by 12 points.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Workable and Recruiterflow come out 48 and 36 under rubric v1.0, 12 points in favour of Workable. Workable leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Recruiterflow leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Recruiterflow 18, Workable 42) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Recruiterflow 33, Workable 55), the second being 36% of the weighted advantage Workable 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
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
Recruiterflow and Workable are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Workable is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Recruiterflow | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruiterflow 33 · Workable 55
4.4 weighted points to Workable
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruiterflow 18 · Workable 42
4.3 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Recruiterflow 44 · Workable 58
2.1 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Recruiterflow 33 · Workable 42
1.1 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Recruiterflow 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Recruiterflow 58 · Workable 62
0.5 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruiterflow minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Recruiterflow | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 55 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 42 | -24 | -4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 48 (F) | -12 | -11.6 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | 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% | 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruiterflow 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