§ The result
1 point separates LinkedIn Recruiter and Tenzo AI.
LinkedIn Recruiter (Sourcing) edges Tenzo AI (Screening) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. Tenzo AI takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for LinkedIn Recruiter, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, and Tenzo AI holds it (LinkedIn Recruiter 50, Tenzo AI 83, 18% weight), worth 95% of the weighted advantage Tenzo AI builds across the 2 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
Tenzo AI
Tenzo AI's AI recruiter, Morgan, screens and interviews applicants by phone, SMS, email, WhatsApp or video in 40+ languages, scores them against employer-defined rubrics with fraud and identity checks, schedules next rounds, and writes scores, transcripts and recordings back to the customer's ATS.
§ The record
LinkedIn Recruiter is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Tenzo AI under Screening 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 Tenzo AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | LinkedIn Recruiter | Tenzo AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 2024 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Tenzo AI 83
5.9 weighted points to Tenzo AI
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 67 · Tenzo AI 45
4.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
LinkedIn Recruiter 62 · Tenzo AI 55
1.1 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
LinkedIn Recruiter 66 · Tenzo AI 60
0.7 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Tenzo AI 45
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 68 · Tenzo AI 62
0.5 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
LinkedIn Recruiter 38 · Tenzo AI 40
0.3 weighted points to Tenzo AI
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 13.5 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 LinkedIn Recruiter minus Tenzo AI.
| Category | Weight | LinkedIn Recruiter | Tenzo AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 67 | 45 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 83 | -33 | -5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | Tenzo AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 5 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | 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 | 4 | Audit reportSources 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; Tenzo AI has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter and Tenzo AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains, and 34 for Tenzo AI, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- LinkedIn Recruiter last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tenzo AI 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