§ The result
Radancy leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Radancy sits 11 points above XOR under rubric v1.0 — 41 against 30 — with Radancy filed under Sourcing and XOR under Screening. Radancy leads every one of the 7 criteria, XOR none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Radancy 20 to XOR 18. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 42, XOR 20 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 7 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, XOR under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
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 | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · XOR 20
4.4 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · XOR 42
2.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · XOR 40
2.0 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · XOR 48
1.0 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · XOR 25
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · XOR 18
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · XOR 33
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +11.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 20 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 18 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 40 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 33 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 30 (F) | +11 | +11.0 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 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 | 11 | 7 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR last reviewed
- July 17, 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