§ The result
1 point separates LinkedIn Recruiter and Tribepad.
LinkedIn Recruiter (Sourcing) edges Tribepad (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of LinkedIn Recruiter: LinkedIn Recruiter is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Tribepad on Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, and Tribepad holds it (LinkedIn Recruiter 50, Tribepad 78, 18% weight), worth 91% of the weighted advantage Tribepad 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
Tribepad
Tribepad is a UK applicant tracking system whose built-in Sidekick AI assistant scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted skills and generates candidate summaries, SWOT analyses, job descriptions, salary suggestions and interview questions.
§ The record
LinkedIn Recruiter is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Tribepad under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | LinkedIn Recruiter | Tribepad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2002 | 2008 |
§ 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 · Tribepad 78
5.0 weighted points to Tribepad
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 67 · Tribepad 56
2.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
LinkedIn Recruiter 38 · Tribepad 30
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
LinkedIn Recruiter 66 · Tribepad 58
1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
LinkedIn Recruiter 62 · Tribepad 56
0.9 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 68 · Tribepad 58
0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Tribepad 54
0.5 weighted points to Tribepad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.6 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 +0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is LinkedIn Recruiter minus Tribepad.
| Category | Weight | LinkedIn Recruiter | Tribepad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 67 | 56 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 78 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (F) | +1 | +0.5 |
§ 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 | Tribepad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 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; Tribepad has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter and Tribepad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains, and 32 for Tribepad, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- LinkedIn Recruiter last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tribepad 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