§ The result
2 points separate Radancy and Workstream.
Radancy (Sourcing) edges Workstream (Screening) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 41 to 39. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Radancy, with 1 level: Radancy is ahead on Data Governance Disclosure and Workstream on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, is both the widest raw gap (Radancy 58, Workstream 47) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 63% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 5 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They also share 3 secondary categories: ATS-integrated, Scheduling and Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Radancy | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Workstream 47
1.6 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Workstream 61
0.5 weighted points to Workstream
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Workstream 40
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Workstream 56
0.3 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Workstream 27
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Workstream 35
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.1 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 Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 20 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 47 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 61 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 39 (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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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