§ The result
1 point separates Bryq and Sapia.ai.
Within the Assessment cohort, Bryq edges Sapia.ai by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. Bryq leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Sapia.ai leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Bryq 70, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 66% of the weighted advantage Bryq holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Bryq
Bryq is a science-based talent-intelligence platform whose core product is a short, blind, chatbot-driven pre-hire assessment scoring candidates on cognitive ability, personality/behavioral traits, and job skills to produce a job-fit "match" score used for hiring and internal mobility.
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
Bryq and Sapia.ai 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 | Bryq | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Bryq 70 · Sapia.ai 52
3.2 weighted points to Bryq
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Bryq 54 · Sapia.ai 70
3.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Bryq 54 · Sapia.ai 62
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Bryq 40 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Bryq
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Bryq 55 · Sapia.ai 50
0.6 weighted points to Bryq
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Bryq 66 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to Bryq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Bryq minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Bryq | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 70 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 70 | 52 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (F) | +1 | +0.7 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Bryq | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Bryq has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 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 Bryq and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for Bryq, across 4 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Bryq last reviewed
- July 17, 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