§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Radancy on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai finishes 15 points clear of Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 41 — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Radancy none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Radancy 60 to Sapia.ai 62. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Radancy 20, Sapia.ai 52, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Radancy | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2006 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Sapia.ai 52
5.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Sapia.ai 70
5.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Sapia.ai 50
1.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Sapia.ai 35
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.4 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 -15.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 70 | -28 | -5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 52 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 50 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 56 (F) | -15 | -15.4 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai 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.
§ Where next