HomeCompareBrazen vs Wonderlic

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Brazen vs Wonderlic

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Wonderlic leads Brazen by 5 points.

Wonderlic scores 43 and Brazen 38 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Wonderlic leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Brazen leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Brazen 30, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Brazen 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, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordBrazenWonderlic
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20071937

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 40% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Brazen 30 · Wonderlic 48

    3.2 weighted points to Wonderlic

  2. 20% weight · 70% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Brazen 40 · Wonderlic 52

    2.4 weighted points to Wonderlic

  3. 15% weight · 84% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Brazen 45 · Wonderlic 38

    1.1 weighted points to Brazen

  4. 12% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Brazen 46 · Wonderlic 52

    0.7 weighted points to Wonderlic

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Brazen 38 · Wonderlic 33

    0.6 weighted points to Brazen

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Brazen minus Wonderlic.

CategoryWeightBrazenWonderlicΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4052-12-2.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%3048-18-3.2
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4538+7+1.1
Human Oversight Design12%4652-6-0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%3833+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%38 (F)43 (F)-5-4.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightBrazenWonderlic
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%0121Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%67Sources on the vendor's own domain96Sources on the vendor's own domain

Brazen has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Brazen, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Brazen last reviewed
July 17, 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.