§ The result
Radancy leads Arena Analytics by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Radancy, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 41 and Arena Analytics, filed under Screening, on 32, 9 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Radancy: Radancy is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Arena Analytics on Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Arena Analytics 38, Radancy 60) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Arena Analytics 30, Radancy 42), the second being 23% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
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
Arena Analytics is filed under Screening AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arena Analytics | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · Radancy 42
2.4 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · Radancy 58
2.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · Radancy 57
2.3 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · Radancy 60
1.8 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · Radancy 36
1.0 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · Radancy 20
0.9 weighted points to Arena Analytics
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arena Analytics 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 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 -9.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 57 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 36 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 41 (F) | -9 | -9.4 |
§ 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 | Arena Analytics | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Arena Analytics sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 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