§ The result
3 points separate Checkr and Textkernel.
Checkr (Screening) edges Textkernel (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 54 to 51. Checkr leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Textkernel leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Textkernel — Checkr 35, Textkernel 55, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Textkernel holds across the 1 criterion 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Textkernel 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 | Checkr | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2014 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Textkernel 55
3.6 weighted points to Textkernel
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Textkernel 55
3.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Textkernel 40
1.2 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Textkernel 55
1.1 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Textkernel 60
0.7 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Textkernel 62
0.5 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 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 +2.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 55 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 55 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 51 (F) | +3 | +2.9 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 13 | 5 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel last reviewed
- June 7, 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