§ The result
Pinpoint leads Radancy on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint finishes 16 points clear of Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 41 — across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Pinpoint leads every one of the 7 criteria, Radancy none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Pinpoint 66 to Radancy 60. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Pinpoint 72, Radancy 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
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
Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | JE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pinpoint 72 · Radancy 42
6.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pinpoint 42 · Radancy 20
4.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pinpoint 52 · Radancy 36
1.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pinpoint 38 · Radancy 28
1.5 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pinpoint 68 · Radancy 58
1.5 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pinpoint 64 · Radancy 57
0.8 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pinpoint 66 · Radancy 60
0.5 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +16.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pinpoint minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Pinpoint | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 72 | 42 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 20 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 57 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 36 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 41 (F) | +16 | +16.2 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pinpoint last reviewed
- July 17, 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