§ The result
SHL leads Feenyx on 6 of the 7 criteria.
SHL sits 11 points above Feenyx under rubric v1.0, 51 against 40, with both filed under Assessment. Feenyx is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: SHL takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Post-Market Monitoring, Feenyx 38 to SHL 40. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Feenyx 25, SHL 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage SHL holds across the 6 criteria 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
SHL
SHL is a global talent-assessment provider offering AI-scored cognitive ability, personality, behavioral, situational-judgement, coding, and video-interview assessments that score, rank, and recommend candidates for hiring and development decisions.
§ The record
Feenyx and SHL are both filed under Assessment 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 | SHL |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 1977 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · SHL 50
4.5 weighted points to SHL
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · SHL 60
3.6 weighted points to SHL
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · SHL 58
1.2 weighted points to SHL
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · SHL 30
0.8 weighted points to SHL
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · SHL 60
0.4 weighted points to SHL
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · SHL 40
0.2 weighted points to SHL
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus SHL.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | SHL | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 51 (F) | -11 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | SHL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | 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 | 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 | 15 | 4 | 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; SHL has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for SHL, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- SHL last reviewed
- June 7, 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