§ The result
Paradox and Radancy tie at 41.
Paradox (Scheduling) and Radancy (Sourcing) tie at 41 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Paradox leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Radancy 6, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Paradox 50, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
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
Paradox is filed under Scheduling 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 | Paradox | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Paradox 50 · Radancy 20
5.4 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Paradox 45 · Radancy 58
1.9 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Paradox 45 · Radancy 60
1.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Paradox 50 · Radancy 57
0.8 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Paradox 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
20% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Paradox 40 · Radancy 42
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Paradox 35 · Radancy 36
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Paradox minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Paradox | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 20 | +30 | +5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 60 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 41 (F) | - | +0.4 |
§ 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 | Paradox | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 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 Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 32 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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