§ The result
1 point separates Radancy and Oleeo.
Radancy (Sourcing) edges Oleeo (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 41 to 40. Radancy leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Oleeo leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Oleeo — Oleeo 40, Radancy 20, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
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
Oleeo 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 | Oleeo | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1995 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oleeo 40 · Radancy 20
3.6 weighted points to Oleeo
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oleeo 45 · Radancy 58
1.9 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Oleeo 30 · Radancy 36
0.7 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oleeo 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oleeo 40 · Radancy 42
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oleeo 55 · Radancy 60
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oleeo 55 · Radancy 57
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 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 -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oleeo minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Oleeo | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 20 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 36 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 41 (F) | -1 | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oleeo 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