§ The result
Paradox takes the total, Feenyx takes more of the criteria.
Paradox holds a 1-point edge over Feenyx under rubric v1.0, 41 to 40, across the Scheduling and Assessment cohorts. Feenyx leads more of the criteria, 5 against 1 for Paradox, yet Paradox takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Feenyx 25, Paradox 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 1 criterion 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Paradox 50
4.5 weighted points to Paradox
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Paradox 50
1.0 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Paradox 45
0.8 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Paradox 45
0.8 weighted points to Feenyx
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Paradox 40
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Paradox 35
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 41 (F) | -1 | -1.2 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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