§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai finishes 18 points clear of Alooba inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 56 against 38. Of the 7 criteria Alooba wins none, and the narrowest lead Sapia.ai holds is on Customer Documentation, Alooba 58 to Sapia.ai 62. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 40, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), is only 34% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
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
Alooba 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 | Alooba | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | AU |
| Founded | 2019 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Sapia.ai 70
6.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Sapia.ai 52
5.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Sapia.ai 62
2.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Sapia.ai 50
1.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Sapia.ai 35
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 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 -17.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -17.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 70 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 52 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 50 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 56 (F) | -18 | -17.8 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 Alooba and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba 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