§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Brainner on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above Brainner, filed under Screening: 56 against 46 under rubric v1.0. Sapia.ai takes all 7 criteria from Brainner without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Customer Documentation, Brainner 58 to Sapia.ai 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Brainner 52, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Brainner | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2023 | 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
Brainner 52 · Sapia.ai 70
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Sapia.ai 52
1.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Sapia.ai 62
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Sapia.ai 62
1.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Sapia.ai 50
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 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 -9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 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 -9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 62 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -9.9 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | 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% | 33 | 4 | 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 |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner 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