§ The result
3 points separate Brainner and Wonderlic.
Brainner holds a 3-point edge over Wonderlic under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43, across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Brainner leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Brainner 53, Wonderlic 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Brainner holds across the 4 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Brainner | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Wonderlic 38
2.3 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Wonderlic 33
1.4 weighted points to Brainner
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Wonderlic 48
1.1 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Wonderlic 25
0.8 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Wonderlic 52
0.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Wonderlic 55
0.2 weighted points to Brainner
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 38 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 33 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 43 (F) | +3 | +3.4 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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