HomeCompareEntelo vs Paradox

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Entelo vs Paradox

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Paradox leads Entelo on 4 of the 7 criteria.

Paradox scores 41 and Entelo 33 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Scheduling and Sourcing cohorts. Paradox leads 4 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 3 are level, so Entelo is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 4 Paradox leads is Customer Documentation, Entelo 40 to Paradox 45. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Entelo 20, Paradox 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Entelo is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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.

RecordEnteloParadox
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20112016

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 62% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Entelo 20 · Paradox 50

    5.4 weighted points to Paradox

  2. 20% weight · 84% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Entelo 30 · Paradox 40

    2.0 weighted points to Paradox

  3. 12% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Entelo 42 · Paradox 50

    1.0 weighted points to Paradox

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Entelo 40 · Paradox 45

    0.4 weighted points to Paradox

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.8.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Entelo minus Paradox.

CategoryWeightEnteloParadoxΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3040-10-2.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2050-30-5.4
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4545--
Human Oversight Design12%4250-8-1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%3535--
Customer Documentation8%4045-5-0.4
Total100%33 (F)41 (F)-8-8.8

§ 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.

CriterionWeightEnteloParadox
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%1111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%2220Audit reportSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1110Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%98Sources on the vendor's own domain82Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 26 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Entelo, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Entelo last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Paradox last reviewed
May 21, 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.