Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Radancy
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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Harri and Radancy tie at 41.
Harri, filed under ATS-integrated, and Radancy, filed under Sourcing, tie at 41 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Harri leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Radancy 3, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harri 44, Radancy 28 — and at a 15% weight it carries 74% of the weighted advantage Harri holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri3
- Radancy3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support44 vs 28
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Radancy is in scope of
| Record | Harri | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2006 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight39% of the movement so far
Harri44Radancy282.4 weighted points to Harri
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight62% of the movement so far
Harri35Radancy421.4 weighted points to Radancy
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight77% of the movement so far
Harri52Radancy580.9 weighted points to Radancy
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight86% of the movement so far
Harri52Radancy570.6 weighted points to Radancy
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight94% of the movement so far
Harri40Radancy360.5 weighted points to Harri
- 6
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri22Radancy200.4 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 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 +0.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Radancy, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 20 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 28 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 36 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 41F | - | +0.3 |
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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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.