§ The result
Radancy leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Radancy scores 41 and Qureos 33 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Radancy is ahead of Qureos on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Post-Market Monitoring at Qureos 35 to Radancy 36. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Qureos 28, Radancy 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
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
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Qureos | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AE | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Radancy 42
2.8 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Radancy 58
2.1 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Radancy 20
1.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Radancy 60
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Radancy 57
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 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 -7.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 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 -7.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 20 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 41 (F) | -8 | -7.9 |
§ 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 | Qureos | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 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 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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