§ The result
Findem takes the total, Rippling takes more of the criteria.
Findem (Sourcing) edges Rippling (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 58 to 56. Rippling 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, Rippling 42 — 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Findem is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Rippling under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Findem is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Findem | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Rippling 42
7.4 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Rippling 73
3.0 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Rippling 45
1.1 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Rippling 64
1.1 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Rippling 47
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Rippling 64
0.5 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.6 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 +1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 73 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 42 | +41 | +7.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 45 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 64 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 47 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 56 (F) | +2 | +1.2 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling 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