§ The result
HiBob leads Feenyx by 6 points.
HiBob scores 46 and Feenyx 40 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. HiBob leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Feenyx leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. The advantage HiBob holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 42, HiBob 55, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points HiBob gains across the 6 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
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, HiBob under ATS-integrated 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 | HiBob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · HiBob 55
2.6 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 50% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · HiBob 35
1.5 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · HiBob 47
1.1 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · HiBob 57
1.1 weighted points to HiBob
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · HiBob 20
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · HiBob 63
0.6 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · HiBob 61
0.5 weighted points to HiBob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus HiBob.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | HiBob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 63 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 47 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 61 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 46 (F) | -6 | -6.4 |
§ 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 | HiBob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 29 | 7 | 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; HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 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 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiBob 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