Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Fetcher vs Loxo
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
Loxo
Loxo is an AI-native talent-intelligence platform that combines candidate sourcing, a recruiting CRM, and an applicant tracking system, using proprietary ranking models and a self-built talent graph of 800M+ people to source, rank, and match candidates for recruiting and staffing firms.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Fetcher and Loxo tie at 37.
Fetcher and Loxo tie at 37 under rubric v1.0 inside the Sourcing cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Fetcher leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Loxo 4, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Fetcher 28, Loxo 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Fetcher holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Fetcher3
- Loxo4
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency28 vs 20
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Fetcher and Loxo are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Fetcher is in scope of
| Record | Fetcher | Loxo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight31% of the movement so far
Fetcher28Loxo201.4 weighted points to Fetcher
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight47% of the movement so far
Fetcher25Loxo300.8 weighted points to Loxo
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight64% of the movement so far
Fetcher55Loxo500.8 weighted points to Fetcher
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight77% of the movement so far
Fetcher27Loxo300.6 weighted points to Loxo
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight90% of the movement so far
Fetcher35Loxo400.6 weighted points to Loxo
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight95% of the movement so far
Fetcher52Loxo500.2 weighted points to Fetcher
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Fetcher55Loxo580.2 weighted points to Loxo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus Loxo, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | Loxo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 30 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 20 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 37F | 37F | - | +0.2 |
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 | Fetcher | Loxo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Loxo has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Loxo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Loxo last reviewed
- July 17, 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
Scored against