Findem
HireAIScore rates Findem 58 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed June 7, 2026. Findem ranks 8 of 86 vendors rated in Candidate sourcing AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 17 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Findem — 12 with a cited source, 5 recording that nothing was located.
Score breakdown
Findem, criterion by criterion
Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.
Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20% · category avg 48
58
+11.6
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18% · category avg 40
83
+14.9
FRIA Support
Weight 15% · category avg 31
38
+5.7
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15% · category avg 53
57
+8.5
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12% · category avg 56
60
+7.2
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12% · category avg 40
42
+5.0
Customer Documentation
Weight 8% · category avg 57
58
+4.6
Total weighted score
57.7(rounded to 58 for display)
Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 86 Candidate sourcing AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.
Strongest criterion
Bias Audit Transparency
83raw / 100
Contributes 14.9 to the total. 83 against a 40 category average.
Weakest criterion
FRIA Support
38raw / 100
Contributes 5.7 to the total. 38 against a 31 category average.
Cited evidence
The evidence behind the score
Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.
Download diligence recordEvidence ledger
- Items
- 17
- Documentation
- 7
- Audit report
- 2
- Public statement
- 3
- Absence
- 5
- With a source URL
- 12 of 17
- Source hostnames
- 2
- Fewest items
- 1
- Human Oversight Design
These figures measure how thoroughly Findem was reviewed, not how Findem performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
2 items58
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Structures responsible AI on the four NIST AI RMF functions, discloses underlying foundation models, and states 'Findem builds AI you can inspect.'
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-06-07.
Where we looked: No ISO 42001, model card, or Article 11 technical documentation pack located; the security page aligns only to 'ISO/IEC 27001 principles' without certification.
Bias Audit Transparency
3 items83
- Audit reportCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Public Warden AI assurance dashboard showing a monthly continuous bias audit (latest June 2026, n=44,072) across 11 protected categories, all 'Clear,' mapped to NYC LL 144, Colorado SB 205, and the EU AI Act.
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Findem blog announcing completion of an independent Warden AI bias audit (December 2025), live for ongoing review in the AI Assurance Dashboard.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
States Warden AI returned fairness scores at or near parity across every demographic group tested and commits to at-least-annual independent bias audits.
FRIA Support
2 items38
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
EU AI Act section states Findem performs no emotion recognition or social scoring and 'will comply' if products qualify as high-risk, but provides no deployer guidance.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-06-07.
Where we looked: No FRIA template or Article 27 deployer guidance located; the only proactive resource is a generic 'Responsible AI Innovation Accelerator' curriculum.
Data Governance Disclosure
3 items57
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Details SOC 2 Type II, AES-256 encryption, data classification, GDPR/CCPA/Colorado/OFCCP coverage, and customer data-deletion/exclusion controls.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
States protected/demographic data is used solely for bias auditing and fairness testing, not for scoring, and that customer EEOC data replaces probabilistic inference.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-06-07.
Where we looked: No ISO 42001 and no public subprocessor list located on the security/compliance page.
Human Oversight Design
1 item60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
'Human-in-the-loop by design' with per-recommendation explainability ('you can see what information shaped every recommendation') and an explicit non-decision boundary.
Post-Market Monitoring
3 items42
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Vulnerability reporting via trust@findem.ai with a defined responsible-disclosure process; no bug bounty.
- Audit reportCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Continuously updated monthly Warden AI fairness dashboard functions as an ongoing post-market bias-monitoring surface.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-06-07.
Where we looked: No public status page, incident channel, or model-update changelog located.
Customer Documentation
3 items58
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Public enterprise security/compliance page enumerating certifications, data controls, and privacy-framework coverage, with links to privacy policy and DPA.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Detailed public responsible-AI page acting as a topic hub with links to the Trust Center and bias-audit dashboard.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public material located as of 2026-06-07.
Where we looked: No NYC LL 144 candidate-notice template or EU AI Act deployer guidance published; DPA/privacy docs sit behind the gated Vanta trust center.
Editorial notes
Company overview
Findem is a Redwood City–based AI talent-intelligence vendor founded in 2019. Its core product goes "beyond resumes," using what it calls "3D data" and "attributes" to enrich and index more than 850 million global candidate profiles, then match those candidates against employer-defined role requirements. On top of this search-and-sourcing foundation, Findem layers a talent CRM and a tier of "agentic" tools - autonomous agents for job posting, application boost, screening, and interview scheduling.
Regulatory exposure
Findem's central function - analysing and filtering candidates and producing match scores against a role - falls within the EU AI Act's Annex III high-risk category for recruitment and selection, and its match-scoring brings it within scope of NYC Local Law 144's definition of an AEDT. Findem narrows this exposure with a deliberate "decision-support, not decision-maker" posture, stating plainly that its AI "does not reject candidates" or "score people on protected characteristics." That framing reduces, but does not eliminate, deployer obligations. Findem already sits in the top tier of its peer set on bias-audit transparency: it runs a continuous monthly third-party audit with Warden AI across 11 protected categories, with a public AI Assurance Dashboard mapped to NYC LL 144, Colorado SB 205, and the EU AI Act.
Path to a higher score
To raise its remaining scores Findem should publish an Article 11–style technical/ model documentation pack or pursue ISO 42001 (currently absent - it aligns to ISO 27001 "principles" only, and is SOC 2 Type II certified); publish explicit EU AI Act deployer guidance and a FRIA template; surface a public post-market monitoring surface beyond the single security inbox; and ungate the underlying Warden audit report and DPA.
Regulatory frame
What applies to candidate sourcing AI.
Ranking outputs are inside Annex III §4 when they influence hiring decisions. GDPR Article 22 (automated decision-making) and the GDPR rights around profiling apply independently for EU candidates.
Compare
Findem against its nearest-scoring peers.
The closest scores in Candidate sourcing AI, side by side.
- Side-by-sideFindem vs Sense58F
- Side-by-sideFindem vs Tezi58F
- Side-by-sideFindem vs Fuel5058F
- Side-by-sideFindem vs Pinpoint57F
Ranking
Others rated in Candidate sourcing AI
Ranked 8 of 86 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.
- #5Sense58F
- #6Tezi58F
- #7Fuel5058F
- #8FindemThis profile58F
- #9Pinpoint57F
- #10LinkedIn Recruiter57F
Conflicts of interest
No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.
Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.