§ The result
Findem and Sense tie at 58.
Findem (Sourcing) and Sense (Screening) tie at 58 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Findem leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Sense 5, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Findem 83, Sense 72 — 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Findem is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sense under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Findem | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Sense 72
2.0 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Sense 52
1.2 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Sense 64
0.5 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Sense 60
0.4 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Sense 62
0.3 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Sense 58
0.1 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 72 | +11 | +2.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 58 (F) | - | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 3 | 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 | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem and Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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.
§ Where next