§ The result
2 points separate Brainner and Fountain.
Within the Screening cohort, Brainner edges Fountain by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 44. Fountain takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 4 for Brainner, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Brainner 42, Fountain 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Brainner holds across the 4 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
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
§ The record
Brainner and Fountain are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Brainner | Fountain |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Fountain 30
2.2 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Fountain 58
1.0 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Fountain 40
0.6 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Fountain 52
0.5 weighted points to Brainner
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Fountain 50
0.4 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Fountain 55
0.3 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Fountain.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Fountain | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 44 (F) | +2 | +2.4 |
§ 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 | Brainner | Fountain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fountain last reviewed
- June 7, 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