HomeComparePhenom vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Phenom vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Phenom leads UKG by 8 points.

Phenom scores 52 and UKG 44 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. Phenom leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Phenom 75, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Phenom is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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.

RecordPhenomUKG
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20102020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 60% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Phenom 75 · UKG 30

    8.1 weighted points to Phenom

  2. 15% weight · 71% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Phenom 25 · UKG 35

    1.5 weighted points to UKG

  3. 20% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Phenom 55 · UKG 48

    1.4 weighted points to Phenom

  4. 12% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Phenom 60 · UKG 52

    1.0 weighted points to Phenom

  5. 12% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Phenom 30 · UKG 38

    1.0 weighted points to UKG

  6. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Phenom 60 · UKG 56

    0.6 weighted points to Phenom

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +8.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Phenom minus UKG.

CategoryWeightPhenomUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5548+7+1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%7530+45+8.1
FRIA Support15%2535-10-1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%6056+4+0.6
Human Oversight Design12%6052+8+1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%3038-8-1.0
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%52 (F)44 (F)+8+8.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightPhenomUKG
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%20Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain02
FRIA Support15%0111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1002
Post-Market Monitoring12%0111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%20Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%82Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain68Audit 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 24 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Phenom last reviewed
May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
UKG last reviewed
June 7, 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.