§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads Recruit CRM on all 7 criteria.
LinkedIn Recruiter finishes 17 points clear of Recruit CRM under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 40 — across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. LinkedIn Recruiter takes all 7 criteria and Recruit CRM none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, LinkedIn Recruiter 38 to Recruit CRM 34. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (LinkedIn Recruiter 67, Recruit CRM 34) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 40% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Recruit CRM
Recruit CRM is an ATS and CRM for recruitment agencies and executive search firms, with AI resume parsing, AI sourcing from an 800M+ profile Global Database, and AI candidate matching that scores and ranks candidates 0–100 with explanations for each dimension.
§ The record
LinkedIn Recruiter is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Recruit CRM under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only LinkedIn Recruiter is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | LinkedIn Recruiter | Recruit CRM |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2002 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 67 · Recruit CRM 34
6.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Recruit CRM 20
5.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
LinkedIn Recruiter 62 · Recruit CRM 54
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
LinkedIn Recruiter 66 · Recruit CRM 58
1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Recruit CRM 42
1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 68 · Recruit CRM 60
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
LinkedIn Recruiter 38 · Recruit CRM 34
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +17 beside that +16.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is LinkedIn Recruiter minus Recruit CRM.
| Category | Weight | LinkedIn Recruiter | Recruit CRM | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 67 | 34 | +33 | +6.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 20 | +30 | +5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 34 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 40 (F) | +17 | +16.4 |
§ 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | Recruit CRM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 30 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Recruit CRM has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter and Recruit CRM sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains, and 35 for Recruit CRM, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- LinkedIn Recruiter last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruit CRM 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