§ The result
Rippling leads Radancy on all 7 criteria.
Rippling finishes 15 points clear of Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 41 — across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Rippling leads every one of the 7 criteria, Radancy none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Radancy 57 to Rippling 60. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 42, Rippling 73 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
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
Radancy 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 Radancy is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Radancy | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Rippling 73
6.2 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Rippling 42
4.0 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Rippling 45
2.5 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Rippling 47
1.3 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Rippling 64
0.9 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Rippling 60
0.4 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Rippling 64
0.3 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 73 | -31 | -6.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 47 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 56 (F) | -15 | -15.6 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Radancy | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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