§ The result
Wonderlic takes the total, Radancy takes more of the criteria.
Wonderlic (Assessment) edges Radancy (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 43 to 41. Radancy leads more of the criteria than Wonderlic — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Wonderlic leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Wonderlic. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 20, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 72% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 2 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Wonderlic 48
5.0 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Wonderlic 38
3.0 weighted points to Radancy
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Wonderlic 52
2.0 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Wonderlic 52
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Wonderlic 25
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Wonderlic 55
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Wonderlic 33
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 48 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 33 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 43 (F) | -2 | -2.2 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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