The 90% Coverage Gap Between Sourcing Tools and State Licence Boards

Most AI sourcing platforms will tell you how many candidate profiles they hold. Almost none will tell you how many of those candidates they have actually checked against a licensing authority. That gap is where healthcare recruiters lose the most time, because a profile is a claim and a licence check is a fact.

• Database size and licence verification are different claims, and vendors rarely distinguish them. Published sourcing databases run from 750M+ profiles across 45+ platforms to 800M+ across 30+ sources. None of the major generalist platforms publish a licence-verification figure alongside their database size. A large database with no verification tells you a candidate exists. It does not tell you they are eligible to work.
• Verifying after the fact is the default, and it is the expensive default. Credentialing platforms such as Apploi do verification well, but only for candidates already in your process. By the time a candidate reaches a credentialing check, a recruiter has already spent the sourcing and screening hours on them.
• Coverage has to be near-complete to be useful. Verifying 60% of state boards means 40% of candidates get no verification at all, which in practice means the riskiest unknown candidates are the ones nobody checked.

What our client says

"By simply putting in vetting criteria, I was able to get a very specific talent pool within a day. With EasySource, we can reach a huge database or filter for specific licenses and areas."

Niki Simoneaux, Chief Operating Officer, Arc Health    Source: HireQuotient Extends AI Recruiting Capabilities to Paylocity Customers in Frontline Industries

Read against the coverage problem above, the phrase doing the real work in that quote is "filter for specific licences and areas," in the same breath as database size. That is the pairing most of the category does not offer: reach and verification as one query, not two separate steps a recruiter has to reconcile by hand.

From this, the honest comparison is not "we have a bigger database." Several vendors publish comparable or larger profile counts. The comparison is that a large database without licence-board coverage produces a list you still have to manually check, while a smaller, verified pool produces a list you can act on immediately. Which one is worth more depends entirely on whether your bottleneck is finding candidates or trusting them.

Why this works

EasySource queries US state government registries and licensing boards directly, with coverage of 90%+ of state licence databases, and checks credentials, active standing and territory compliance before a candidate is ever contacted. Across healthcare that spans 20M+ verified clinicians. The 90% figure is not a claim about database size. It is a claim about how much of that database has actually been checked.

Where we have not published equivalent numbers for other verticals yet, we say so rather than imply parity we have not measured.

FAQ

What is the difference between a candidate database and licence verification?

A database indicates a candidate exists and roughly matches your criteria. Licence verification confirms their credential is real, current and correctly attributed, checked against the issuing state board rather than taken on trust.

Do most AI sourcing tools verify licences before contacting candidates?

Most publish database size without publishing a verification claim.

Why does verification coverage need to be near 90% rather than partial?

Partial coverage means the candidates who are not checked are the ones carrying the most risk, since they are precisely the ones nobody has looked at.