§ The result
Test Partnership leads Aon Assessment on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Test Partnership opens a 15-point lead on Aon Assessment, 50 to 35, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Test Partnership takes all 7 criteria from Aon Assessment without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Post-Market Monitoring, Aon Assessment 25 to Test Partnership 33. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Aon Assessment 38, Test Partnership 57) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Aon Assessment 40, Test Partnership 57), the second being 23% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Aon Assessment
Aon Assessment Solutions (formerly cut-e) provides enterprise pre-hire psychometric assessments - ability, personality (ADEPT-15), situational-judgement, gamified cognitive (smartPredict/gridChallenge) tests and an AI-scored video interview tool (vidAssess-AI) - used to screen and rank job applicants at scale.
Vendor profile
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
Aon Assessment and Test Partnership 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 | Aon Assessment | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2002 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Aon Assessment 40 · Test Partnership 57
3.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Aon Assessment 30 · Test Partnership 48
3.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Aon Assessment 38 · Test Partnership 57
2.9 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Aon Assessment 25 · Test Partnership 36
1.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Aon Assessment 45 · Test Partnership 58
1.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Aon Assessment 48 · Test Partnership 62
1.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Aon Assessment 25 · Test Partnership 33
1.0 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Aon Assessment minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | Aon Assessment | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 57 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 36 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 57 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 50 (F) | -15 | -14.8 |
§ 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 | Aon Assessment | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 26 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Aon Assessment has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Aon Assessment and Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Aon Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Aon Assessment last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership last reviewed
- September 25, 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