§ The result
Workable leads ZipRecruiter by 8 points.
Workable scores 48 and ZipRecruiter 40 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Workable: Workable is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and ZipRecruiter on FRIA Support. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Workable 42, ZipRecruiter 24, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Workable builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
ZipRecruiter
ZipRecruiter is an online employment marketplace whose AI matching engine sends employers' job postings out, alerts matched job seekers and invites them to apply, and labels and ranks applicants (for example as 'Great Match') in the employer's candidate dashboard.
§ The record
Workable is filed under ATS-integrated AI, ZipRecruiter under Candidate sourcing 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 | Workable | ZipRecruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Workable 42 · ZipRecruiter 24
3.2 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Workable 55 · ZipRecruiter 40
3.0 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Workable 58 · ZipRecruiter 52
0.9 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Workable 62 · ZipRecruiter 55
0.8 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Workable 25 · ZipRecruiter 27
0.3 weighted points to ZipRecruiter
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Workable 42 · ZipRecruiter 40
0.2 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Workable 56 · ZipRecruiter 54
0.2 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 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 +8.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Workable minus ZipRecruiter.
| Category | Weight | Workable | ZipRecruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 24 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 27 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 40 (F) | +8 | +8.1 |
§ 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 | Workable | ZipRecruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; ZipRecruiter has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable and ZipRecruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for ZipRecruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Workable last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- ZipRecruiter 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