§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads Feenyx on all 7 criteria.
LinkedIn Recruiter finishes 17 points clear of Feenyx under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 40 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. LinkedIn Recruiter takes all 7 criteria and Feenyx none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Feenyx 58 to LinkedIn Recruiter 66. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 42, LinkedIn Recruiter 67, 20% weight), is only 30% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter builds across the 7 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
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
Feenyx 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, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
5.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
4.5 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
1.9 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
1.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -16.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 67 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 66 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 68 | -13 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 57 (F) | -17 | -16.7 |
§ 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 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% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 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 Feenyx and LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 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