§ The result
Fountain leads micro1 on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Inside the Screening cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Fountain on 44 and micro1 on 36, 8 points apart. Fountain leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so micro1 is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Fountain leads is Customer Documentation, Fountain 52 to micro1 45. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (Fountain 40, micro1 25) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Fountain 30, micro1 20), 22% of the weighted advantage Fountain builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
Vendor profile
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Fountain and micro1 are both filed 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 micro1 is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Fountain | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fountain 30 · micro1 20
1.8 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fountain 40 · micro1 25
1.8 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fountain 55 · micro1 45
1.5 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fountain 30 · micro1 22
1.2 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fountain 58 · micro1 48
1.2 weighted points to Fountain
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fountain 52 · micro1 45
0.6 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +8.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fountain minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Fountain | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 22 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 25 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 36 (F) | +8 | +8.1 |
§ 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 | Fountain | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | 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% | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fountain last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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