§ The result
Fuel50 takes the total, LinkedIn Recruiter takes more of the criteria.
Fuel50 holds a 1-point edge over LinkedIn Recruiter under rubric v1.0, 58 to 57, with both scored in the Sourcing cohort. LinkedIn Recruiter leads more of the criteria than Fuel50 — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Fuel50 leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Fuel50. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Fuel50 68, LinkedIn Recruiter 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 78% of the weighted advantage Fuel50 holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Fuel50
Fuel50 is an AI internal talent marketplace and workforce-transformation platform that matches employees to internal roles, gigs, mentors, learning and career paths, and fit-scores and ranks internal candidates for open roles and succession pipelines, using a skills ontology curated by in-house I/O psychologists.
Vendor profile
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
§ The record
Fuel50 and LinkedIn Recruiter are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Fuel50 is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Fuel50 | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fuel50 68 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
3.2 weighted points to Fuel50
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fuel50 40 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fuel50 32 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
0.9 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fuel50 70 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
0.6 weighted points to Fuel50
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fuel50 61 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fuel50 62 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
0.5 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fuel50 64 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
0.3 weighted points to Fuel50
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fuel50 minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | Fuel50 | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 67 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 50 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 61 | 66 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 68 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 57 (F) | +1 | +1.0 |
§ 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 | Fuel50 | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fuel50 has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Fuel50 and LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Fuel50, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fuel50 last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- LinkedIn Recruiter 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