§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Crosschq on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Crosschq 47 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Sapia.ai leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Crosschq is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Sapia.ai leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Crosschq 58 to Sapia.ai 62. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Crosschq 50, Sapia.ai 70) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
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
Crosschq 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, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2018 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · Sapia.ai 70
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Sapia.ai 52
2.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · Sapia.ai 50
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -9.1 — 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 -9 beside that -9.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 56 (F) | -9 | -9.1 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 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 Crosschq and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq 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