§ The result
4 points separate Fountain and Feenyx.
Fountain (Screening) edges Feenyx (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 40. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Fountain, with 1 level: Fountain is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Feenyx on Customer Documentation. The advantage Fountain holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 42, Fountain 50, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 38% of the weighted points Fountain gains across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Fountain under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
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 | Fountain |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Fountain 50
1.6 weighted points to Fountain
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Fountain 30
0.9 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Fountain 30
0.8 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Fountain 55
0.8 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Fountain 40
0.2 weighted points to Fountain
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Fountain 52
0.2 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 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 -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Fountain.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Fountain | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 44 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Fountain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 14 | 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; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fountain last reviewed
- June 7, 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