Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Phenom
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Phenom leads Harri by 11 points.
Phenom sits 11 points above Harri under rubric v1.0 — 52 against 41 — with Phenom filed under Sourcing and Harri under ATS-integrated. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Phenom: Phenom is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Harri on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harri 22, Phenom 75) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 61% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri3
- Phenom4
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 75
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Phenom under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Harri | Phenom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2010 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight47% of the movement so far
Harri22Phenom759.5 weighted points to Phenom
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight67% of the movement so far
Harri35Phenom554.0 weighted points to Phenom
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight81% of the movement so far
Harri44Phenom252.9 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight87% of the movement so far
Harri52Phenom601.2 weighted points to Phenom
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight93% of the movement so far
Harri40Phenom301.2 weighted points to Harri
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight98% of the movement so far
Harri52Phenom601.0 weighted points to Phenom
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri60Phenom550.4 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Phenom, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Phenom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 55 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 75 | -53 | -9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 25 | +19 | +2.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 30 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 52F | -11 | -11.2 |
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 | Harri | Phenom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Phenom last reviewed
- May 21, 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.