§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads Brainner on all 7 criteria.
LinkedIn Recruiter sits 11 points above Brainner under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with LinkedIn Recruiter filed under Sourcing and Brainner under Screening. LinkedIn Recruiter is ahead of Brainner on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Post-Market Monitoring at Brainner 45 to LinkedIn Recruiter 50. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (Brainner 50, LinkedIn Recruiter 66) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Brainner 52, LinkedIn Recruiter 67), 29% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter builds across the 7 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
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, LinkedIn Recruiter 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 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Brainner | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
3.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
1.9 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
1.3 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 67 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| 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) | 57 (F) | -11 | -10.3 |
§ 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 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% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner and LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 76 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 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