SeekOut
HireAIScore rates SeekOut 34 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed May 21, 2026. SeekOut ranks 77 of 86 vendors rated in Candidate sourcing AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 9 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for SeekOut — 5 with a cited source, 4 recording that nothing was located.
Score breakdown
SeekOut, 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 48
35
+7.0
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18% · category avg 40
40
+7.2
FRIA Support
Weight 15% · category avg 31
25
+3.8
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15% · category avg 53
35
+5.3
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12% · category avg 56
45
+5.4
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12% · category avg 40
25
+3.0
Customer Documentation
Weight 8% · category avg 57
35
+2.8
Total weighted score
34.4(rounded to 34 for display)
Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 86 Candidate sourcing AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.
Strongest criterion
Human Oversight Design
45raw / 100
Contributes 5.4 to the total. 45 against a 56 category average.
Weakest criterion
Post-Market Monitoring
25raw / 100
Contributes 3.0 to the total. 25 against a 40 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
- 9
- Documentation
- 4
- Public statement
- 1
- Absence
- 4
- With a source URL
- 5 of 9
- Source hostnames
- 1
- Fewest items
- 1
- FRIA Support
These figures measure how thoroughly SeekOut was reviewed, not how SeekOut performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
2 items35
- DocumentationCaptured May 21, 2026
Responsible AI page (7 principles).
- AbsenceCaptured May 21, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-05-21.
Where we looked: https://trust.seekout.com - gated (403 on direct fetch), No model card or system card located.
Bias Audit Transparency
2 items40
- Public statementCaptured May 21, 2026
Credo.AI bias audit referenced on responsible AI page; audit report PDF is not publicly downloadable.
- AbsenceCaptured May 21, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-05-21.
Where we looked: No NYC LL 144-specific audit summary located.
FRIA Support
1 item25
- AbsenceCaptured May 21, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-05-21.
Where we looked: No FRIA template located.
Data Governance Disclosure
1 item35
- DocumentationCaptured May 21, 2026
Product page mentions design exclusions (no protected-class signals). No standalone data governance disclosure.
Human Oversight Design
1 item45
- DocumentationCaptured May 21, 2026
SeekOut Sam: "explainable, compliant, and designed to keep humans in control"; every score comes with a plain-language explanation.
Post-Market Monitoring
1 item25
- AbsenceCaptured May 21, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-05-21.
Where we looked: https://trust.seekout.com - gated, No public model-update channel located.
Customer Documentation
1 item35
- DocumentationCaptured May 21, 2026
Public responsible-AI blog post.
https://www.seekout.com/blog/commitment-to-responsible-and-ethical-ai
Editorial notes
Company overview
SeekOut aggregates public profile data - social profiles, public records, publication data - into a searchable talent index. Recruiters search and filter the index; AI assists with query expansion, ranking, and outreach generation.
Regulatory exposure
Profile-aggregation sourcing tools sit at the intersection of two regimes. The AI Act characterization of "sourcing" as high-risk vs not depends on whether the AI does ranking that influences hiring decisions (it does, in SeekOut's case). The data-aggregation surface raises independent GDPR and (in the US) FCRA-adjacent questions about the provenance of the underlying profile data and candidate rights to correction.
Path to a higher score
To move into the B band on this rubric, SeekOut would need to publish
(a) a current NYC LL 144 bias audit for the ranking feature, (b) a
public statement on data sourcing - which sources feed the index, how
candidates can request correction or deletion - at the level of detail a
deployer's FRIA needs, and (c) a model card for the ranking model with
subgroup performance metrics.
Regulatory frame
What applies to candidate sourcing AI.
Ranking outputs are inside Annex III §4 when they influence hiring decisions. GDPR Article 22 (automated decision-making) and the GDPR rights around profiling apply independently for EU candidates.
Compare
SeekOut against its nearest-scoring peers.
The closest scores in Candidate sourcing AI, side by side.
- Side-by-sideSeekOut vs Ceipal35F
- Side-by-sideSeekOut vs HireQuotient34F
- Side-by-sideSeekOut vs Qureos33F
- Side-by-sideSeekOut vs Entelo33F
Ranking
Others rated in Candidate sourcing AI
Ranked 77 of 86 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.
- #74Turing36F
- #75Dice36F
- #76Ceipal35F
- #77SeekOutThis profile34F
- #78HireQuotient34F
- #79Qureos33F
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.