§ The result
iCIMS leads Radancy by 14 points.
iCIMS sits 14 points above Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 41 — with iCIMS filed under ATS-integrated and Radancy under Sourcing. iCIMS leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — iCIMS 68, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 60% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Vendor profile
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.
§ The record
iCIMS is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iCIMS | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2000 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · Radancy 20
8.6 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · Radancy 42
3.2 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · Radancy 28
1.5 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · Radancy 36
0.7 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iCIMS 56 · Radancy 58
0.3 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · Radancy 57
0.1 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 20 | +48 | +8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 41 (F) | +14 | +14.0 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 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.
§ Where next