§ The result
Rippling leads Workable by 8 points.
Rippling scores 56 and Workable 48 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Rippling leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Workable leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Rippling takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Rippling 73, Workable 55), which is 41% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, FRIA Support, Rippling 45 to Workable 25.
Vendor profile
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
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
Rippling 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 | Rippling | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Rippling 73 · Workable 55
3.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Rippling 45 · Workable 25
3.0 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Rippling 64 · Workable 58
0.9 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Rippling 64 · Workable 56
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Rippling 47 · Workable 42
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Rippling 60 · Workable 62
0.2 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Rippling minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Rippling | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 73 | 55 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 45 | 25 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 56 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 48 (F) | +8 | +8.5 |
§ 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 | Rippling | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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