§ The result
isolved leads Fetcher by 10 points.
isolved sits 10 points above Fetcher under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 37 — with isolved filed under ATS-integrated and Fetcher under Sourcing. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of isolved: isolved is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Fetcher on Data Governance Disclosure. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Fetcher 27, isolved 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage isolved holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
§ The record
Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, isolved under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Fetcher | isolved |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1986 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · isolved 50
4.6 weighted points to isolved
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · isolved 45
3.1 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · isolved 47
1.4 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · isolved 30
0.8 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · isolved 55
0.4 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · isolved 53
0.3 weighted points to Fetcher
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · isolved 56
0.1 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus isolved.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | isolved | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 50 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 53 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 47 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 47 (F) | -10 | -10.0 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | isolved | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- isolved 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