§ The result
3 points separate UKG and Radancy.
UKG (ATS-integrated) edges Radancy (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 41. UKG leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 20, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 4 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · UKG 30
1.8 weighted points to UKG
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · UKG 48
1.2 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · UKG 35
1.1 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · UKG 52
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · UKG 55
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · UKG 38
0.2 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 38 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 44 (F) | -3 | -3.0 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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