§ The result
Findem leads Radancy by 17 points.
Findem finishes 17 points clear of Radancy inside the Sourcing cohort under rubric v1.0: 58 against 41. Findem leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 2, including Customer Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Findem 83, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 66% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 5 criteria 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Findem and Radancy are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Radancy 20
11.3 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Radancy 42
3.2 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Radancy 28
1.5 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Radancy 36
0.7 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Radancy 57
0.4 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Radancy 58
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +17 beside that +16.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 20 | +63 | +11.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 41 (F) | +17 | +16.8 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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