HomeCompareFetcher vs Vervoe

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fetcher vs Vervoe

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Vervoe leads Fetcher by 9 points.

Vervoe scores 46 and Fetcher 37 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Vervoe leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Fetcher leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 28, Vervoe 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Vervoe holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Vervoe 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 Vervoe is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordFetcherVervoe
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSAU
Founded20142016

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 43% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Fetcher 28 · Vervoe 52

    4.3 weighted points to Vervoe

  2. 20% weight · 80% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fetcher 27 · Vervoe 45

    3.6 weighted points to Vervoe

  3. 12% weight · 89% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Fetcher 52 · Vervoe 60

    1.0 weighted points to Vervoe

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

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Fetcher 35 · Vervoe 28

    0.8 weighted points to Fetcher

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Fetcher 55 · Vervoe 58

    0.2 weighted points to Vervoe

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -8.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.3.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fetcher minus Vervoe.

CategoryWeightFetcherVervoeΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2745-18-3.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2852-24-4.3
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5260-8-1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%3528+7+0.8
Customer Documentation8%5558-3-0.2
Total100%37 (F)46 (F)-9-8.3

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFetcherVervoe
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1121Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain40Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%136Sources on the vendor's own domain155Audit 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; Vervoe has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Vervoe, across 1 distinct source domain.

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