§ The result
2 points separate Draup and Feenyx.
Draup (Sourcing) edges Feenyx (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 40. Feenyx takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 4 for Draup, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency, at 18%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Draup (Draup 33, Feenyx 25), 42% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Post-Market Monitoring, Draup 28 to Feenyx 38.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Feenyx under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Feenyx 25
1.4 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Feenyx 42
1.2 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Feenyx 38
1.2 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Feenyx 50
0.6 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Feenyx 55
0.2 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.6 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 +2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 40 (F) | +2 | +2.2 |
§ 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 | Draup | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 5 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup and Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup 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