HomeCompareFetcher vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fetcher vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

UKG leads Fetcher on 5 of the 7 criteria.

UKG scores 44 and Fetcher 37 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. UKG leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Fetcher is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 UKG leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Fetcher 55 to UKG 56. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, UKG 48 — and at a 20% weight it carries 64% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, UKG 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.

RecordFetcherUKG
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20142020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fetcher 27 · UKG 48

    4.2 weighted points to UKG

  2. 15% weight · 87% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Fetcher 25 · UKG 35

    1.5 weighted points to UKG

  3. 18% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Fetcher 28 · UKG 30

    0.4 weighted points to UKG

  4. 12% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Fetcher 35 · UKG 38

    0.4 weighted points to UKG

  5. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Fetcher 55 · UKG 56

    0.1 weighted points to UKG

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fetcher minus UKG.

CategoryWeightFetcherUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2748-21-4.2
Bias Audit Transparency18%2830-2-0.4
FRIA Support15%2535-10-1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%5556-1-0.1
Human Oversight Design12%5252--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3538-3-0.4
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%37 (F)44 (F)-7-6.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFetcherUKG
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1102
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain02
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%136Sources on the vendor's own domain68Audit 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

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