§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads Equalture on all 7 criteria.
LinkedIn Recruiter, filed under Sourcing, comes out 13 points above Equalture, filed under Assessment: 57 against 44 under rubric v1.0. LinkedIn Recruiter leads every one of the 7 criteria, Equalture none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Equalture 55 to LinkedIn Recruiter 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Equalture 45, LinkedIn Recruiter 67, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Equalture
Equalture is a game-based pre-employment assessment platform whose short browser games measure candidates' cognitive abilities and behavioural tendencies and convert them into a Fit Score ranked against an employer-specific "Success Profile" derived from that employer's own top performers.
Vendor profile
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
§ The record
Equalture is filed under Assessment AI, LinkedIn Recruiter under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Equalture is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Equalture | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Equalture 45 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
4.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Equalture 50 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
1.9 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Equalture 40 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Equalture 38 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Equalture 30 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Equalture 55 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
1.1 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Equalture 60 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Equalture minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | Equalture | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 67 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 66 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 68 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 57 (F) | -13 | -12.5 |
§ 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 | Equalture | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Equalture last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- LinkedIn Recruiter last reviewed
- September 25, 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