Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Draup vs Radancy
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Draup takes the total, Radancy takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Draup and Radancy finish 1 point apart, 42 to 41, as two Sourcing entries. Radancy leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Draup, yet Draup takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. 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.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Draup3
- Radancy4
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency33 vs 20
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Draup and Radancy are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Radancy is in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight40% of the movement so far
Draup33Radancy202.3 weighted points to Draup
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight60% of the movement so far
Draup48Radancy421.2 weighted points to Draup
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight76% of the movement so far
Draup28Radancy361.0 weighted points to Radancy
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight86% of the movement so far
Draup54Radancy580.6 weighted points to Radancy
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight94% of the movement so far
Draup25Radancy280.4 weighted points to Radancy
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
Draup57Radancy600.2 weighted points to Radancy
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Draup58Radancy570.1 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 42F | 41F | +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
Scored against