Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Checkr vendor trust score

Trust scoring is the “is this vendor a fair counterparty” question, deliberately separated from product quality. Six dimensions, dated, sourced where events warrant it.

6.8
/10
mixed
Verdict

Checkr's vendor trust profile is mixed. The dimension scores below show where to negotiate hard and what to monitor across a multi-year contract.

Vendor Trust Score

Is Checkr a trustworthy vendor?

6.8/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
7.0
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
7.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
6.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
6.0
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
8.0
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
6.5
Trust signal log
  • 2020-09-14
    FCRA class action settled for approximately $5M
    Plaintiffs alleged Checkr provided inaccurate criminal records to employers without proper FCRA dispute procedures.
  • 2021-09-22
    Checkr reached ~$5B valuation in Series E
    Led by Y Combinator Continuity and Coatue. Confirmed Checkr as the modern leader of the category.
  • 2022-11-18
    AI screening model facing discrimination concerns
    Civil rights groups raised concerns about Checkr AI model recommending adverse actions at higher rates for certain demographic groups.
  • 2024-06-12
    NYC Local Law 144 bias audit deadline missed by partners
    Some Checkr customers cited as missing bias audit deadlines; Checkr provided updated audit tooling later in the year.
  • 2024-11-08
    NYSE IPO continues to be rumored; no filing as of May 2026
Vendor Trust is scored independently of product quality. A great product from an unfair vendor still earns a low trust score.

How to read this score

  • Trust is separate from product quality. A vendor can ship great software and treat customers badly — or vice versa. We score the two independently.
  • 8.0+/10: strong. Few concerns at renewal or procurement.
  • 6.5–7.9: mixed. Negotiate hard on the lowest dimensions; monitor across the contract term.
  • 5.0–6.4: cautious. Add explicit mitigation language to the master agreement.
  • Below 5.0: concerning. Treat this as a contracted-risk evaluation, not a product-fit evaluation.
  • Updates: we re-verify scoring quarterly. Material trust events (acquisitions, breaches, leadership change, hostile contract terms) get logged on the timeline above.

Related editorial

Last updated 2026-05-10. Scoring methodology: editorial standards. Disagree? Tell us.