HomeCompareUKG vs Willo

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

UKG vs Willo

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

3 points separate UKG and Willo.

UKG (ATS-integrated) edges Willo (Video interview) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 41. UKG leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Willo leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — UKG 48, Willo 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

UKG is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Willo under Video interview 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. Only Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordUKGWillo
Price tierEnterpriseLow
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20202018

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 37% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    UKG 48 · Willo 38

    2.0 weighted points to UKG

  2. 15% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    UKG 35 · Willo 25

    1.5 weighted points to UKG

  3. 12% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    UKG 52 · Willo 62

    1.2 weighted points to Willo

  4. 15% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    UKG 56 · Willo 53

    0.4 weighted points to UKG

  5. 12% weight · 99% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    UKG 38 · Willo 36

    0.2 weighted points to UKG

  6. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    UKG 55 · Willo 54

    0.1 weighted points to UKG

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.1 — 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 +3 beside that +3.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is UKG minus Willo.

CategoryWeightUKGWilloΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4838+10+2.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%3030--
FRIA Support15%3525+10+1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%5653+3+0.4
Human Oversight Design12%5262-10-1.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%3836+2+0.2
Customer Documentation8%5554+1+0.1
Total100%44 (F)41 (F)+3+3.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightUKGWillo
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%0211
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%0220Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%68Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain95Sources on the vendor's own domain

UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
UKG last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Willo 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.