HomeCompareFetcher vs Toggl Hire

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fetcher vs Toggl Hire

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Fetcher and Toggl Hire tie at 37.

Fetcher (Sourcing) and Toggl Hire (Assessment) tie at 37 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Fetcher leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Toggl Hire 2, with 3 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 28, Toggl Hire 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage Fetcher holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Toggl Hire under Assessment 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. Only Toggl Hire is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordFetcherToggl Hire
Price tierMidLow
HeadquartersUSEE
Founded20142013

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 45% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Fetcher 28 · Toggl Hire 20

    1.4 weighted points to Fetcher

  2. 15% weight · 69% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Fetcher 25 · Toggl Hire 30

    0.8 weighted points to Toggl Hire

  3. 20% weight · 87% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fetcher 27 · Toggl Hire 30

    0.6 weighted points to Toggl Hire

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Fetcher 55 · Toggl Hire 50

    0.4 weighted points to Fetcher

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.2 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 +0.5.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fetcher minus Toggl Hire.

CategoryWeightFetcherToggl HireΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2730-3-0.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2820+8+1.4
FRIA Support15%2530-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5252--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3535--
Customer Documentation8%5550+5+0.4
Total100%37 (F)37 (F)-+0.5

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFetcherToggl Hire
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1101
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources 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 domain20Sources 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 domain104Sources on the vendor's own domain

Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Toggl Hire has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Toggl Hire, across 1 distinct source domain.

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