Bullhorn
HireAIScore rates Bullhorn 54 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed June 7, 2026. Bullhorn ranks 19 of 77 vendors rated in ATS-integrated AI, against a category average of 47. That score is drawn from 20 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Bullhorn — 15 with a cited source, 6 recording that nothing was located.
Score breakdown
Bullhorn, criterion by criterion
Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.
Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20% · category avg 51
62
+12.4
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18% · category avg 41
58
+10.4
FRIA Support
Weight 15% · category avg 32
38
+5.7
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15% · category avg 54
60
+9.0
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12% · category avg 57
60
+7.2
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12% · category avg 42
35
+4.2
Customer Documentation
Weight 8% · category avg 59
60
+4.8
Total weighted score
53.7(rounded to 54 for display)
Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 77 ATS-integrated AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.
Strongest criterion
Article 11 Technical Documentation
62raw / 100
Contributes 12.4 to the total. 62 against a 51 category average.
Weakest criterion
Post-Market Monitoring
35raw / 100
Contributes 4.2 to the total. 35 against a 42 category average.
Cited evidence
The evidence behind the score
Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.
Download diligence recordEvidence ledger
- Items
- 20
- Documentation
- 10
- Audit report
- 1
- Public statement
- 3
- Absence
- 6
- With a source URL
- 15 of 20
- Source hostnames
- 2
- Fewest items
- 2
- FRIA Support
These figures measure how thoroughly Bullhorn was reviewed, not how Bullhorn performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
3 items62
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Responsible AI Statement (updated March 2026) lists six AI principles, references the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and describes structured technical documentation covering system architecture, model training and validation, risk mitigation, and compliance/governance.
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
The statement provides an explainability claim that matching relies on inspectable keyword-based algorithms that let users understand how results are generated.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public model/system cards, ISO 42001 certification, or downloadable instructions-for-use were found; the detailed technical documentation is available only on request via an account manager.
Bias Audit Transparency
3 items58
- Audit reportCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Bullhorn blog states it partnered with O'Neil Risk Consulting and Algorithmic Auditing (ORCAA) to audit Bullhorn AI Automatch for inherent bias under NYC Local Law 144, with results showing candidates grouped by gender and race/ethnicity were treated equally.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Responsible AI Statement confirms an independent third party conducted bias assessments examining feature selection and differential impact across demographic groups, with detailed reports available only upon request through an account manager.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Neither Bullhorn nor ORCAA's audit of AI Automatch appears in the crowd-sourced ACLU tracker of publicly posted NYC Local Law 144 bias audits, indicating no public bias-audit summary posting.
FRIA Support
2 items38
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Bullhorn states its commitment to trustworthy AI is demonstrated by voluntarily signing the EU Artificial Intelligence Pact and references compliance with applicable AI laws.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No EU AI Act Article 27 FRIA template, fundamental-rights impact assessment, or explicit deployer-obligation guidance was found on the Responsible AI Statement, AI toolkit, or security/privacy pages.
Data Governance Disclosure
3 items60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Responsible AI Statement says Bullhorn excludes sensitive information such as gender, age and ethnicity from search and ranking and adheres to data-minimization principles.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Dated public subprocessor list (Dec 2025) discloses cloud, parsing and AI subprocessors, including AI/LLM providers Anthropic (Claude), OpenAI (GPT), AWS and Microsoft.
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Bullhorn states it does not use personally identifiable data to build the models that power its automation and AI tools and that screening does not reference candidate names.
Human Oversight Design
3 items60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Responsible AI Statement states the systems support decision-making but do not automate it, users are required to review results, and the ultimate decision rests with the user, with human review for accuracy, relevance and compliance.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Privacy policy reinforces oversight by stating Bullhorn does not use personal data for solely automated decision-making or profiling under GDPR Art. 22.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No documentation of per-jurisdiction oversight toggles, audit/override logs, or in-interface explainability scoring was found.
Post-Market Monitoring
2 items35
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Bullhorn maintains a public security page describing annual third-party SOC audits and a security program, providing a baseline monitoring/contact surface but no AI-specific monitoring.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public AI model-update changelog, continuous bias/performance monitoring dashboard, or dedicated AI-incident reporting channel was found across the Responsible AI Statement, AI toolkit, or security pages.
Customer Documentation
4 items60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
AI Toolkit resource hub provides buyer's guides, adoption guidance, and a responsible-AI strategy article for customers evaluating staffing AI.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Public Responsible AI Statement serves as deployer-facing compliance/ethics documentation covering principles, bias assessment, data governance and human oversight.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Public product pages (Amplify, Copilot, platform) describe AI capabilities such as Search & Match and Digital Workers in detail.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No NYC Local Law 144 candidate-notice templates, jurisdiction-specific deployer guidance, or publicly downloadable DPA/bias-audit summary were found.
Editorial notes
Company overview
Bullhorn, Inc. (founded 1999, headquartered in Boston, US; owned by Insight Partners since 2017) is the leading ATS/CRM platform for staffing and recruitment agencies, used by more than 10,000 firms. Its AI layer spans Bullhorn Copilot and the Bullhorn Amplify suite (Amplify Chat, Digital Workers) plus Search & Match and parsing technology acquired with Textkernel in 2024, which source, screen, rank and match candidates to jobs. Pricing is quote-based and runs roughly $99 to $315+ per user per month with custom enterprise contracts and large implementation fees, placing it at the higher end of the market.
Regulatory exposure
Bullhorn's matching/ranking AI (AI Automatch, Search & Match) functions as an automated employment decision tool, exposing it to NYC Local Law 144, the EU AI Act's Annex III high-risk hiring category, Illinois and Colorado AI-employment rules wherever its customers operate. Bullhorn is notably more forthcoming than most peers: it engaged the respected independent auditor ORCAA to test AI Automatch for bias under LL 144, signed the EU AI Pact, and maintains a structured technical-documentation pack referencing the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The central gap is publication: the ORCAA bias audit and the technical pack are available only on request through an account manager, the audit does not appear on public LL 144 trackers, and there is no FRIA template or public post-market monitoring channel.
Path to a higher score
Bullhorn could materially raise its score by publishing the ORCAA bias-audit summary as a downloadable document (with auditor, date, distribution date and intersectional metrics) and committing to annual public re-audits, and by posting its technical-documentation pack or model/system cards publicly rather than gating them behind account managers. Adding explicit EU AI Act Article 27 FRIA deployer guidance and NYC LL 144 candidate-notice templates, a public AI changelog or post-market monitoring page, and pursuing ISO 42001 certification would move it from a credibly-governed-but-gated posture toward genuine public transparency.
Regulatory frame
What applies to ATS-integrated AI.
Ranking features are inside EU AI Act Annex III §4 (high-risk) and inside NYC Local Law 144 when they affect NYC-based candidates. Customers should treat the AI surface as a distinct deployer-FRIA scope from the rest of the ATS.
Compare
Bullhorn against its nearest-scoring peers.
The closest scores in ATS-integrated AI, side by side.
- Side-by-sideBullhorn vs Gem55F
- Side-by-sideBullhorn vs iCIMS55F
- Side-by-sideBullhorn vs Classet55F
- Side-by-sideBullhorn vs Metaview54F
Ranking
Others rated in ATS-integrated AI
Ranked 19 of 77 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.
- #16iCIMS55F
- #17Classet55F
- #18Metaview54F
- #19BullhornThis profile54F
- #20Spark Hire53F
- #21SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting53F
Conflicts of interest
No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.
Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.