§ The result
Workable leads Radancy by 7 points.
Workable scores 48 and Radancy 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Workable leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 20, Workable 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Workable 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Workable 42
4.0 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Workable 55
2.6 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Workable 42
0.7 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Workable 62
0.6 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Workable 25
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Workable 56
0.3 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 42 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 48 (F) | -7 | -7.1 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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