§ The result
1 point separates softgarden and Radancy.
softgarden (ATS-integrated) edges Radancy (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41. Radancy takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 4 for softgarden, whose share includes Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. One criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, is both the widest raw gap (Radancy 36, softgarden 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 55% of the weighted advantage softgarden holds across the 4 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2006 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · softgarden 44
1.0 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · softgarden 54
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · softgarden 22
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · softgarden 30
0.3 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · softgarden 58
0.1 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 22 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 44 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 42 (F) | -1 | -1.0 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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