§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Draup on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 14 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Sapia.ai filed under Assessment and Draup under Sourcing. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Draup none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Draup 58 to Sapia.ai 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Draup 48, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Sapia.ai 70
4.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Sapia.ai 52
3.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Sapia.ai 50
2.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Sapia.ai 35
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Sapia.ai 62
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Sapia.ai 62
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 70 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 52 | -19 | -3.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 56 (F) | -14 | -14.0 |
§ 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 | Draup | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | 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 |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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