§ The result
UKG leads Workstream by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, UKG, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 44 and Workstream, filed under Screening, on 39, 5 points apart. Workstream takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for UKG, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (UKG 30, Workstream 20, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 29% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
UKG is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | UKG | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2020 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
UKG 30 · Workstream 20
1.8 weighted points to UKG
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
UKG 48 · Workstream 40
1.6 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
UKG 56 · Workstream 47
1.3 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
UKG 35 · Workstream 27
1.2 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
UKG 52 · Workstream 61
1.1 weighted points to Workstream
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
UKG 38 · Workstream 35
0.4 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
UKG 55 · Workstream 56
0.1 weighted points to Workstream
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is UKG minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | UKG | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 47 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 61 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 39 (F) | +5 | +5.1 |
§ 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 | UKG | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 2 | — | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 0 | 2 | — | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workstream 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: 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream last reviewed
- September 25, 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