§ The result
Workable leads softgarden by 6 points.
Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Workable on 48 and softgarden on 42, 6 points apart. softgarden takes 3 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 4 for Workable, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — softgarden 22, Workable 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
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
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
softgarden and Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2001 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
softgarden 22 · Workable 42
3.6 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
softgarden 42 · Workable 55
2.6 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
softgarden 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
softgarden 54 · Workable 58
0.6 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
softgarden 58 · Workable 62
0.5 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
softgarden 44 · Workable 42
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
softgarden 58 · Workable 56
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 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 -6.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is softgarden minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | softgarden | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 42 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -6.1 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- softgarden 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