§ The result
4 points separate Rippling and Phenom.
Rippling (ATS-integrated) edges Phenom (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 52. Rippling leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Phenom leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Phenom — Phenom 75, Rippling 42, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
Vendor profile
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Phenom is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Rippling under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Phenom is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Phenom | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Phenom 75 · Rippling 42
5.9 weighted points to Phenom
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Phenom 55 · Rippling 73
3.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Phenom 25 · Rippling 45
3.0 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Phenom 30 · Rippling 47
2.0 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Phenom 55 · Rippling 64
0.7 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Phenom 60 · Rippling 64
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Phenom minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Phenom | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 73 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 75 | 42 | +33 | +5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 45 | -20 | -3.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 47 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 64 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 56 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Phenom | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 23 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Phenom last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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