§ The result
3 points separate Dayforce and Checkr.
Dayforce (ATS-integrated) edges Checkr (Screening) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 57 to 54. Dayforce leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Checkr leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: FRIA Support (Checkr 32, Dayforce 40) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Checkr 35, Dayforce 42), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Dayforce holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Dayforce under ATS-integrated 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 | Checkr | Dayforce |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1992 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Dayforce 42
1.3 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Dayforce 40
1.2 weighted points to Dayforce
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Dayforce 74
0.8 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Dayforce 47
0.4 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Dayforce 68
0.2 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Dayforce 70
0.2 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Dayforce 63
0.1 weighted points to Dayforce
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.4 — 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 -3 beside that -3.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Dayforce.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Dayforce | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 74 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 63 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 68 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 47 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 70 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 57 (F) | -3 | -3.4 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Dayforce | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dayforce 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