§ The result
4 points separate Radancy and AmazingHiring.
Within the Sourcing cohort, Radancy edges AmazingHiring by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 41 to 37. Radancy leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while AmazingHiring leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Human Oversight Design (AmazingHiring 48, Radancy 57) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (AmazingHiring 35, Radancy 42), the second being 30% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
AmazingHiring and Radancy 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 Radancy is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Radancy 42
1.4 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Radancy 58
1.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Radancy 57
1.1 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Radancy 60
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Radancy 20
0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Radancy 36
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Radancy 28
0.3 weighted points to AmazingHiring
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 20 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 36 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 41 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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