§ The result
1 point separates Radancy and Feenyx.
Radancy (Sourcing) edges Feenyx (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 41 to 40. Feenyx and Radancy each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Radancy holds (headed by Data Governance Disclosure) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, is both the widest raw gap (Feenyx 50, Radancy 58) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 3 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and 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 | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Radancy 58
1.2 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Radancy 20
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Radancy 60
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Radancy 36
0.2 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Radancy 57
0.1 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.3 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 -0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 36 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 41 (F) | -1 | -0.8 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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