§ The result
4 points separate Feenyx and micro1.
Feenyx holds a 4-point edge over micro1 under rubric v1.0, 40 to 36, across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Feenyx leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while micro1 leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — micro1 takes Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20%, Feenyx 42 to micro1 50, 100% of the weighted advantage micro1 holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Post-Market Monitoring, Feenyx 38 to micro1 25.
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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, micro1 under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · micro1 50
1.6 weighted points to micro1
12% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · micro1 25
1.6 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · micro1 48
1.2 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · micro1 20
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · micro1 45
0.8 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · micro1 45
0.8 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · micro1 22
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 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 +4.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 36 (F) | +4 | +4.1 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | 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 | 7 | 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 | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 25 | 8 | Sources 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx and micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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