§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Criteria on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, Sapia.ai edges Criteria by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 53. Sapia.ai leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Criteria is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Sapia.ai leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Criteria 68 to Sapia.ai 70. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Criteria 42, Sapia.ai 50, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 28% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
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
Criteria 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 | Criteria | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2006 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · Sapia.ai 50
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · Sapia.ai 52
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · Sapia.ai 62
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · Sapia.ai 35
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · Sapia.ai 70
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
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 3.4 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 Criteria minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 70 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 56 (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 | Criteria | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 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