§ The result
Radancy leads micro1 by 5 points.
Radancy scores 41 and micro1 36 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Radancy leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while micro1 leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (micro1 45, Radancy 60) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (micro1 45, Radancy 58), 30% of the weighted advantage Radancy builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
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
micro1 is filed under Screening AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | micro1 | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
micro1 45 · Radancy 58
1.9 weighted points to Radancy
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
micro1 50 · Radancy 42
1.6 weighted points to micro1
12% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
micro1 25 · Radancy 36
1.3 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
micro1 45 · Radancy 60
1.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
micro1 48 · Radancy 57
1.1 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
micro1 22 · Radancy 28
0.9 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is micro1 minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | micro1 | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 20 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 28 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 36 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 60 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 41 (F) | -5 | -4.8 |
§ 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 | micro1 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 2 | 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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; some documentation or audit rows for micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- micro1 last reviewed
- September 25, 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