§ The result
RippleMatch leads Radancy by 5 points.
Inside the Sourcing cohort, rubric v1.0 puts RippleMatch on 46 and Radancy on 41, 5 points apart. RippleMatch leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Radancy 20, RippleMatch 53) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 87% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
Radancy and RippleMatch are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
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 | Radancy | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · RippleMatch 53
5.9 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · RippleMatch 50
1.2 weighted points to Radancy
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · RippleMatch 46
0.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · RippleMatch 27
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · RippleMatch 37
0.1 weighted points to RippleMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 46 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 53 | -33 | -5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 37 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 46 (F) | -5 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Radancy | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 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