§ The result
3 points separate Feenyx and Fetcher.
Feenyx holds a 3-point edge over Fetcher under rubric v1.0, 40 to 37, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 3 to 2 in favour of Feenyx, with 2 level: Feenyx is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Fetcher on Data Governance Disclosure. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Feenyx 42, Fetcher 27 — and at a 20% weight it carries 74% of the weighted advantage Feenyx holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Fetcher under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Fetcher |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Fetcher 27
3.0 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Fetcher 55
0.8 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Fetcher 52
0.7 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Fetcher 28
0.5 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Fetcher 35
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +2.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Fetcher.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Fetcher | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 27 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 37 (F) | +3 | +2.8 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Feenyx | Fetcher | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 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.
§ Where next