§ The result
Harver leads Brainner by 10 points.
Harver sits 10 points above Brainner under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 46 — with Harver filed under Assessment and Brainner under Screening. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Harver, with 1 level: Harver is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Brainner on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Brainner 42, Harver 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 64% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Harver under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Harver is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Brainner | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2023 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Harver 80
6.8 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Harver 65
2.6 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Harver 35
0.8 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Harver 40
0.6 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Harver 55
0.3 weighted points to Harver
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Harver 60
0.2 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 65 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 80 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.1 |
§ 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 | Brainner | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Brainner sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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