HomeCompareEntelo vs Fetcher

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Entelo vs Fetcher

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

4 points separate Fetcher and Entelo.

Within the Sourcing cohort, Fetcher edges Entelo by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 37 to 33. Fetcher leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Entelo leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 2 are level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Entelo 40, Fetcher 55) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Entelo 45, Fetcher 55), the second being 28% of the weighted advantage Fetcher holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Entelo and Fetcher 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.

RecordEnteloFetcher
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20112014

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 15% weight · 25% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Entelo 45 · Fetcher 55

    1.5 weighted points to Fetcher

  2. 18% weight · 49% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Entelo 20 · Fetcher 28

    1.4 weighted points to Fetcher

  3. 12% weight · 70% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Entelo 42 · Fetcher 52

    1.2 weighted points to Fetcher

  4. 8% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Entelo 40 · Fetcher 55

    1.2 weighted points to Fetcher

  5. 20% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Entelo 30 · Fetcher 27

    0.6 weighted points to Entelo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -4.7 — 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 -4 beside that -4.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Entelo minus Fetcher.

CategoryWeightEnteloFetcherΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3027+3+0.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2028-8-1.4
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4555-10-1.5
Human Oversight Design12%4252-10-1.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%3535--
Customer Documentation8%4055-15-1.2
Total100%33 (F)37 (F)-4-4.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightEnteloFetcher
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%1121Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%2211
FRIA Support15%0111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1121Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%98Sources on the vendor's own domain136Sources on the vendor's own domain

Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Entelo, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Entelo last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Fetcher 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.