§ The result
Textkernel leads Radancy by 10 points.
Textkernel sits 10 points above Radancy under rubric v1.0, 51 against 41, with both filed under Sourcing. Textkernel leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 20, Textkernel 55 — and at an 18% weight it carries 60% of the weighted advantage Textkernel 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
Radancy and Textkernel are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: ATS-integrated and 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 | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2006 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Textkernel 55
6.3 weighted points to Textkernel
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Textkernel 55
2.6 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Textkernel 32
0.6 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Textkernel 40
0.5 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Textkernel 55
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Textkernel 60
0.4 weighted points to Textkernel
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Textkernel 62
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 55 | -35 | -6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 51 (F) | -10 | -10.1 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 13 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel 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