§ The result
2 points separate Radancy and Canditech.
Radancy (Sourcing) edges Canditech (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 41 to 39. Radancy leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Canditech leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Canditech 52, Radancy 58) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Canditech 37, Radancy 42), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Canditech
Canditech is a skills-assessment and job-simulation platform that screens candidates with work-sample tests, technical and soft-skill assessments, and one-way video interviews, using AI agents to auto-score open-text and video responses.
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
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Canditech | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IL | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Radancy 42
1.0 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Radancy 20
0.9 weighted points to Canditech
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Radancy 58
0.9 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Radancy 57
0.5 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Radancy 36
0.5 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Radancy 28
0.3 weighted points to Canditech
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.2 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 -1.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 42 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 57 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 36 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 41 (F) | -2 | -1.8 |
§ 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 | Canditech | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 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% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech 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