§ The result
Brainner leads AmazingHiring on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Brainner scores 46 and AmazingHiring 37 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Brainner leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so AmazingHiring is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Brainner leads is Human Oversight Design, AmazingHiring 48 to Brainner 50. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (AmazingHiring 22, Brainner 42, 18% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage Brainner builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Brainner under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Brainner is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Brainner |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2023 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Brainner 42
3.6 weighted points to Brainner
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Brainner 52
3.4 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Brainner 45
1.4 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Brainner 58
0.5 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Brainner 53
0.4 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Brainner 50
0.2 weighted points to Brainner
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Brainner.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Brainner | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 53 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 45 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 46 (F) | -9 | -9.6 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Brainner | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 domain | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Brainner sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Brainner 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