§ The result
Feenyx leads Qureos on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Feenyx, filed under Assessment, finishes on 40 and Qureos, filed under Screening, on 33, 7 points apart. Qureos is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Feenyx takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Post-Market Monitoring, Feenyx 38 to Qureos 35. The advantage Feenyx holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 42, Qureos 28, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Feenyx 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Qureos 28
2.8 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Qureos 12
2.3 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Qureos 44
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Qureos 54
0.5 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Qureos 35
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Qureos 52
0.2 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 12 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 33 (F) | +7 | +7.1 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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