# BackgroundChecks.com alternatives: what AI models name instead, September 2026

HR AI Recommendation Index, September 2026 Edition. 179 of the 216 answers in the 1 category where BackgroundChecks.com holds a standing named it neither first nor as an alternative; these are the first choices those answers made. Page: https://hr-ai-index.com/vendors/backgroundchecks-com/alternatives/

## Named instead, most often (every category and segment added)

- Checkr: 52
- First Advantage: 27
- GoodHire: 18
- HireRight: 16
- Accurate Background: 3
- Verified First: 3

## Background screening

**Small business**: 46 of 72 answers did not name BackgroundChecks.com (BackgroundChecks.com is #3 of 9 at 12%).

- GoodHire: first choice in 12 of those 46
- Checkr: first choice in 11 of those 46
- GCheck: first choice in 1 of those 46
- HireRight: first choice in 1 of those 46
- Secure Screening Services: first choice in 1 of those 46
- SentryLink: first choice in 1 of those 46
- Trusted Employees: first choice in 1 of those 46
- Verified Credentials: first choice in 1 of those 46

**Mid-market**: 61 of 72 answers did not name BackgroundChecks.com (BackgroundChecks.com is #4 of 10 at 12%).

- Checkr: first choice in 24 of those 61
- GoodHire: first choice in 6 of those 61
- Verified First: first choice in 3 of those 61
- Accurate Background: first choice in 1 of those 61
- Background Investigation Bureau: first choice in 1 of those 61
- Certn: first choice in 1 of those 61
- EDIFY Screening: first choice in 1 of those 61
- First Advantage: first choice in 1 of those 61

**Enterprise**: 72 of 72 answers did not name BackgroundChecks.com.

- First Advantage: first choice in 26 of those 72
- Checkr: first choice in 17 of those 72
- HireRight: first choice in 15 of those 72
- Accurate Background: first choice in 2 of those 72
- BackgroundChecker.com: first choice in 1 of those 72
- Checkster: first choice in 1 of those 72
- DISA Global Solutions: first choice in 1 of those 72
- First Advantage + Sterling: first choice in 1 of those 72

Published under CC BY 4.0. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.