HomeCompareFetcher vs Oleeo

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fetcher vs Oleeo

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

3 points separate Oleeo and Fetcher.

Oleeo (ATS-integrated) edges Fetcher (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 40 to 37. Oleeo leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Fetcher leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, Oleeo 40 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Oleeo 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.

RecordFetcherOleeo
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20141995

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 36% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fetcher 27 · Oleeo 40

    2.6 weighted points to Oleeo

  2. 18% weight · 66% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Fetcher 28 · Oleeo 40

    2.2 weighted points to Oleeo

  3. 15% weight · 87% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Fetcher 55 · Oleeo 45

    1.5 weighted points to Fetcher

  4. 12% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Fetcher 35 · Oleeo 30

    0.6 weighted points to Fetcher

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Fetcher 52 · Oleeo 55

    0.4 weighted points to Oleeo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -3.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fetcher minus Oleeo.

CategoryWeightFetcherOleeoΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2740-13-2.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2840-12-2.2
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5545+10+1.5
Human Oversight Design12%5255-3-0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3530+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%37 (F)40 (F)-3-3.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFetcherOleeo
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%136Sources on the vendor's own domain106Sources on the vendor's own domain

Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Fetcher last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Oleeo 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.