HomeCompareEntelo vs Phenom

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Entelo vs Phenom

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Phenom leads Entelo by 19 points.

Phenom finishes 19 points clear of Entelo inside the Sourcing cohort under rubric v1.0: 52 against 33. Phenom leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Entelo leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Entelo 20, Phenom 75 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Entelo and Phenom 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.

RecordEnteloPhenom
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20112010

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 47% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Entelo 20 · Phenom 75

    9.9 weighted points to Phenom

  2. 20% weight · 71% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Entelo 30 · Phenom 55

    5.0 weighted points to Phenom

  3. 15% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Entelo 45 · Phenom 60

    2.3 weighted points to Phenom

  4. 12% weight · 91% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Entelo 42 · Phenom 60

    2.2 weighted points to Phenom

  5. 8% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Entelo 40 · Phenom 55

    1.2 weighted points to Phenom

  6. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Entelo 35 · Phenom 30

    0.6 weighted points to Entelo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -19.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 21.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -19 beside that -19.9.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Entelo minus Phenom.

CategoryWeightEnteloPhenomΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3055-25-5.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2075-55-9.9
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4560-15-2.3
Human Oversight Design12%4260-18-2.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%3530+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%4055-15-1.2
Total100%33 (F)52 (F)-19-19.9

§ 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.

CriterionWeightEnteloPhenom
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%1120Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%2220Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1110
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain01
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 domain

Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.

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 Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.

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