§ The result
Checkr leads Feenyx on all 7 criteria.
Checkr sits 14 points above Feenyx under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 40 — with Checkr filed under Screening and Feenyx under Assessment. Checkr takes all 7 criteria and Feenyx none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, Checkr 32 to Feenyx 25. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Checkr 70, Feenyx 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 41% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Feenyx under Assessment 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. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Checkr | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Feenyx 42
5.6 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Feenyx 25
1.8 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Feenyx 50
1.8 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Feenyx 38
1.4 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Feenyx 25
1.1 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Feenyx 55
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Feenyx 58
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +13.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 42 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 55 | +13 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 40 (F) | +14 | +13.7 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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