§ The result
Draup takes the total, Radancy takes more of the criteria.
Within the Sourcing cohort, Draup edges Radancy by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41. Radancy leads more of the criteria than Draup — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Draup leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Draup. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 64% of the weighted advantage Draup holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Draup and Radancy are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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 Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Radancy 20
2.3 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Radancy 42
1.2 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Radancy 36
1.0 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Radancy 58
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Radancy 57
0.1 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 20 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 36 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 41 (F) | +1 | +1.4 |
§ 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 | Draup | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy 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