§ The result
Checkr leads Brainner by 8 points.
Inside the Screening cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Checkr on 54 and Brainner on 46, 8 points apart. Checkr leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Brainner leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Brainner 52, Checkr 70) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 42% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
§ The record
Brainner and Checkr are both filed under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Brainner | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Checkr 70
3.6 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Checkr 66
1.9 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Checkr 62
1.3 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Checkr 35
1.3 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Checkr 68
0.8 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Checkr 50
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Checkr 32
0.3 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Checkr.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 62 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 66 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -7.3 |
§ 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 | Brainner | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 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 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr 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