§ The result
2 points separate UKG and softgarden.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, UKG edges softgarden by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 42. UKG leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while softgarden leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. The advantage UKG holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (softgarden 22, UKG 30, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points UKG gains across the 4 criteria it leads.
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.
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
softgarden and UKG are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | softgarden | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2001 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
softgarden 22 · UKG 30
1.4 weighted points to UKG
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
softgarden 42 · UKG 48
1.2 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
softgarden 30 · UKG 35
0.8 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
softgarden 58 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
softgarden 44 · UKG 38
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
softgarden 54 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
softgarden 58 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is softgarden minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | softgarden | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 44 (F) | -2 | -2.0 |
§ 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 | softgarden | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- softgarden 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