§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Adaface on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Sapia.ai opens a 17-point lead on Adaface, 56 to 39, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Of the 7 criteria Adaface wins none, and the narrowest lead Sapia.ai holds is on Customer Documentation, Adaface 58 to Sapia.ai 62. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Adaface 38, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Adaface
Adaface runs chatbot-led 'conversational' skills tests for 500+ roles that score candidates automatically as pass, borderline pass or fail on benchmarked scorecards, backed by webcam, screen and IP proctoring and an AI résumé parser.
Vendor profile
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Adaface and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Adaface | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SG | AU |
| Founded | 2018 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Adaface 38 · Sapia.ai 70
6.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Adaface 22 · Sapia.ai 52
5.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Adaface 52 · Sapia.ai 62
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Adaface 50 · Sapia.ai 62
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Adaface 38 · Sapia.ai 50
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Adaface 30 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Adaface 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -17.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -17.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Adaface minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Adaface | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 70 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 52 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 56 (F) | -17 | -17.3 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Adaface | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Adaface has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Adaface, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Adaface last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next