Jobma
AI video interviewing platform offering one-way (pre-recorded), live, and agentic AI interviews with automated transcription and AI scoring of candidate video, audio, and written responses as recruiter decision-support.
§ 01 — Score breakdown
§ Score breakdown
Category scoring
Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.
- 01
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20%55
+11.0
- 02
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18%40
+7.2
- 03
FRIA Support
Weight 15%35
+5.3
- 04
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15%56
+8.4
- 05
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12%60
+7.2
- 06
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12%44
+5.3
- 07
Customer Documentation
Weight 8%62
+5.0
§ 02 — Strongest · weakest
Strongest category
Customer Documentation
Raw score 62 · contributes 5.0 to total.
Weakest category
FRIA Support
Raw score 35 · contributes 5.3 to total.
§ 03 — Cited evidence
Download diligence record→§ Evidence
Cited per category
Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence.
§ 04 — Editorial notes
Company overview
Jobma is a US-based video interviewing platform founded in 2012 and headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, used by 3,000+ customers across roughly 40-50 countries in 16 languages. It provides one-way (pre-recorded), live, and 'agentic' AI interviews plus skills and coding assessments, with AI that transcribes responses and generates a per-answer score and an overall average score to help recruiters screen candidates. Jobma explicitly frames the AI as decision-support: 'Our models don't make hiring decisions. People do.'
Regulatory exposure
Because Jobma's AI scores candidate video/audio/written responses to filter applicants, it is a high-risk system under EU AI Act Annex III and an Automated Employment Decision Tool under NYC Local Law 144, and it is in scope for the Illinois AI Video Interview Act and Colorado SB 205. Jobma publicly references AEDT (LL 144), AIVIA, and the EU AI Act, and publishes a principles-based EU AI Act compliance page, SOC 2 Type II and ISO/IEC 27001 certifications, a security trust center, and GDPR/CCPA pages. However, it publishes no independent bias audit results, no Article 11 technical documentation or model card, no ISO/IEC 42001 certification, and no Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment guidance.
Path to a higher score
The largest score gains would come from publishing an independent NYC LL 144 bias audit as a downloadable summary (named auditor, date, and selection/scoring impact ratios) and adding an Article 11-style system/model card or instructions-for-use describing the scoring model, inputs, and limitations. Providing explicit deployer/FRIA guidance for EU customers, certifying its self-described 'AI Management System' to ISO/IEC 42001, documenting AI training-data governance and exclusions, and standing up a public status or continuous-monitoring page would move it from strong marketing-grade claims toward verifiable, evidence-backed compliance.
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.