Comparison
OnHirely vs. In-House Bias Auditing
Should you build an internal bias auditing capability or use OnHirely? Compare the costs, capabilities, and compliance implications.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | OnHirely | In-House Bias Auditing |
|---|---|---|
| Independence requirement | Independent (LL144 compliant) | Not independent |
| Setup time | Same day | 3-6 months |
| Engineering resources | None needed | 1-2 FTEs |
| NYC LL144 compliant | ||
| Multi-regulation support | Must build each | |
| Methodology updates | Automatic | Manual |
| Statistical testing | Must implement | |
| Intersectional analysis | Must implement | |
| Audit trail | Must build | |
| Regulatory updates | Automatic | Must track manually |
OnHirely Advantages
Meets LL144 independence requirement (in-house cannot)
No engineering resources required
Automatically updated for new regulations
Production-ready from day one
Validated methodology with statistical rigor
Fraction of the cost of building in-house
In-House Bias Auditing Advantages
Full control over methodology and data
Can integrate deeply with internal systems
No vendor dependency
Can customize analysis for specific needs
Our Verdict
In-house bias auditing cannot satisfy NYC Local Law 144's independence requirement, making it insufficient as a standalone approach. OnHirely provides independent, compliant auditing at a fraction of the cost of building and maintaining an internal capability. Organizations may use both: OnHirely for compliance and in-house tools for continuous monitoring.
See OnHirely in Action
Start your free audit and experience the difference.
Start Your Free Audit