§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
The Sourcing cohort pairing of LinkedIn Recruiter and AmazingHiring comes out 57 to 37 under rubric v1.0, a 20-point lead for LinkedIn Recruiter. Of the 7 criteria AmazingHiring wins none, and the narrowest lead LinkedIn Recruiter holds is on FRIA Support, AmazingHiring 30 to LinkedIn Recruiter 38. The advantage LinkedIn Recruiter holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (AmazingHiring 35, LinkedIn Recruiter 67, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 32% of the weighted points LinkedIn Recruiter gains across the 7 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
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
§ The record
AmazingHiring and LinkedIn Recruiter are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only LinkedIn Recruiter is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
6.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
5.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
2.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
2.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
1.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
1.3 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -19.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -20 beside that -19.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 67 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 50 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 66 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 50 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 68 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 57 (F) | -20 | -19.9 |
§ 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- LinkedIn Recruiter 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