§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Workable by 8 points.
Workday Recruiting AI scores 56 and Workable 48 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Workday Recruiting AI leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Workable leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Workable 42, Workday Recruiting AI 60, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Workable and Workday Recruiting AI 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 | Workable | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Workable 42 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
3.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Workable 55 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
3.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Workable 25 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
1.5 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Workable 42 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.8 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Workable 56 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.7 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Workable 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.4 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Workable 62 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 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 -7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Workable minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Workable | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 70 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 65 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 65 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 56 (F) | -8 | -7.5 |
§ 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 | Workable | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 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 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Workable last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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