§ The result
Findem takes the total, iMocha takes more of the criteria.
Findem (Sourcing) edges iMocha (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 58 to 56. iMocha leads more of the criteria than Findem — 5 to 1 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Findem leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Findem. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Findem 83, iMocha 44 — and at an 18% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
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
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
§ The record
Findem is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, iMocha 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 iMocha is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | iMocha |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2019 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · iMocha 44
7.0 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · iMocha 68
2.0 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · iMocha 66
1.3 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · iMocha 48
0.7 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · iMocha 66
0.6 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · iMocha 64
0.5 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus iMocha.
| Category | Weight | Findem | iMocha | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 44 | +39 | +7.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 66 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 56 (F) | +2 | +1.8 |
§ 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 | iMocha | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 21 | 5 | 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; iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem and iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iMocha 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.
§ Where next