§ The result
Sense leads Radancy on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Sense finishes 17 points clear of Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 41 — across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Sense leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Radancy is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Sense leads is Customer Documentation, Radancy 60 to Sense 62. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 20, Sense 72 — and at an 18% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Sense holds across the 6 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sense under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: 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 | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Sense 72
9.4 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Sense 60
3.6 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Sense 52
1.9 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Sense 38
1.5 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Sense 64
0.8 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Sense 62
0.2 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -17.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -17.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 72 | -52 | -9.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 64 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 52 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 58 (F) | -17 | -17.4 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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