§ The result
Findem leads Glider AI by 6 points.
Findem scores 58 and Glider AI 52 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Glider AI takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 6 for Findem, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Findem 83, Glider AI 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
Vendor profile
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
§ The record
Findem is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Glider AI under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Glider AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | Glider AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Glider AI 68
2.7 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Glider AI 52
1.2 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Glider AI 55
0.6 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Glider AI 35
0.4 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Glider AI 54
0.4 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Glider AI 40
0.2 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Glider AI 60
0.2 weighted points to Glider AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Glider AI.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Glider AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 68 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 52 (F) | +6 | +5.5 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Findem | Glider AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem and Glider AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Glider AI 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