§ The result
1 point separates Sapia.ai and Classet.
Sapia.ai holds a 1-point edge over Classet under rubric v1.0, 56 to 55, across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Classet takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 4 for Sapia.ai, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Classet 46, Sapia.ai 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 72% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Classet
Classet's AI voice recruiter, Joy, phones hourly and frontline applicants within about a minute of applying, runs employer-scripted screening interviews with binary knockout questions, and sends recruiters recordings, transcripts, summaries and a qualified/unqualified outcome, either in Classet's lightweight ATS or in 100+ connected ATSs.
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
Classet 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 | Classet | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2021 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Classet 46 · Sapia.ai 70
4.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Classet 76 · Sapia.ai 52
4.3 weighted points to Classet
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Classet 58 · Sapia.ai 50
1.0 weighted points to Classet
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Classet 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Classet 57 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Classet 33 · Sapia.ai 35
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.0 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 -1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Classet minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Classet | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 46 | 70 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 76 | 52 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 56 (F) | -1 | -1.4 |
§ 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 | Classet | 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% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 5 | 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 |
Classet has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 5 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 Classet and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for Classet, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Classet 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