Checkr
Vannus records that this vendor has not disclosed which model it runs. Every finding below is quoted to the vendor’s own document, or marked not disclosed where the vendor publishes nothing.
Background-check and identity-verification platform using AI to speed hiring and screening decisions
Uses AI; provider not disclosed. Checkr's own AI page describes a charge classifier, charge explainer, name matcher, document forgery inspector and a conversational tenant-screening chat all branded 'Checkr AI', and a separate first-party article announces ISO 42001 AI- governance certification — but no first-party page names any foundation model or provider. Checked checkr.com/our- technology/ai-powered, checkr.com/mcp, checkr.com/resources/articles/iso-42001-artificial-intelligence- certification and the homepage. We checked and found no first-party page naming it, so the criterion is excluded from the grade rather than counted against Checkr.
Training and retention posture varies by plan. What we publish above describes the vendor’s default plan; enterprise, team and API agreements frequently differ, often materially, and a contract can override the published default entirely. Check your own plan and contract before relying on this row.
This is a separate question from the grade above. The grade measures resilience — whether the tool endures and whether you could leave it. This describes who controls the vendor. A tool can score modestly on one and strongly on the other, and many do.
On U.S. CLOUD Act reach specifically: the statute reaches a provider subject to U.S. jurisdiction over data in its possession, custody or control. Corporate control is a strong indicator of that and it is what we can evidence from published documents — but it is not the whole test. A company founded outside the U.S. can still contract through a U.S. entity or run substantial U.S. operations. Treat this as a starting point for your own review, not a legal determination, and take advice on anything that matters.
Checkr publishes a list of the other companies it uses to process customer data. It names 38 of them, each shown below with the location the vendor lists it under, in the vendor’s own words.
Taken together those entries name at least Canada, EU, Ireland, Philippines, Romania, UK, United States. That is what our place list could match in the vendor’s own words above, so treat it as a floor rather than the whole of it — the entries themselves are the record.
These are other companies, not Checkr. Where a sub-processor is listed as operating is a fact about that company. It is not a statement about where Checkr keeps your data, which Vannus publishes separately and only from a document in which the vendor says so.
Read from checkr.com on 2026-09-16. Every entry above is a verbatim span of that page.
This is the vendor’s own disclosure, reproduced. Vannus has not audited what any of these companies do with your data, and a list can change without notice. Treat it as a starting point for your own review, not a legal determination, and take advice on anything that matters.
Taken from the vendor’s own published material. Vannus does not hold these reports and has not reviewed their scope or dates — ask the vendor for the current report before relying on any of them.
Vannus publishes a nine-dimension trust framework — data sovereignty, training privacy, compliance posture, operational resilience, exit portability, and more. The heaviest criterion asks whether the tool builds its own AI or resells someone else's model; where the vendor discloses it, the grade cites the vendor's own documentation. No paid placements — scoring is walled off from affiliate revenue. See the methodology →