§ The result
3 points separate Pinpoint and Checkr.
Pinpoint (ATS-integrated) edges Checkr (Screening) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 57 to 54. Pinpoint leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Checkr leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Checkr 35, Pinpoint 42, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint holds across the 5 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | JE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Pinpoint 42
1.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Pinpoint 38
0.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Pinpoint 68
0.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Pinpoint 72
0.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Pinpoint 64
0.2 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Pinpoint 52
0.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Pinpoint 66
0.2 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.1 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 -3.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 72 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 68 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 64 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 66 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 57 (F) | -3 | -3.3 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint last reviewed
- July 17, 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