§ The result
Findem leads Tengai on all 7 criteria.
Findem finishes 16 points clear of Tengai under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 42 — across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Findem takes all 7 criteria and Tengai none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Findem 60 to Tengai 58. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Findem 83, Tengai 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 7 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Findem is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Tengai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2019 |
§ 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 · Tengai 33
9.0 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Tengai 45
2.6 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Tengai 28
1.5 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Tengai 33
1.1 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Tengai 50
1.1 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Tengai 58
0.2 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Tengai 55
0.2 weighted points to Findem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 33 | +50 | +9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 42 (F) | +16 | +15.7 |
§ 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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 37 | 5 | Sources 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; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem and Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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