§ The result
softgarden leads Fetcher by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, softgarden, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 42 and Fetcher, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 5 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of softgarden: softgarden is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Fetcher on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, softgarden 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 52% of the weighted advantage softgarden holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, softgarden 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2001 |
§ 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 · softgarden 42
3.0 weighted points to softgarden
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · softgarden 22
1.1 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · softgarden 44
1.1 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · softgarden 58
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · softgarden 54
0.1 weighted points to Fetcher
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 42 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 22 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 42 (F) | -5 | -4.6 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
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 softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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