§ The result
Saville Assessment leads Draup by 6 points.
Saville Assessment scores 48 and Draup 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Draup takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Saville Assessment, whose share includes FRIA Support. Even FRIA Support, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Draup 25, Saville Assessment 40, 15% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Saville Assessment 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 Saville Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 36% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Saville Assessment 40
2.3 weighted points to Saville Assessment
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Saville Assessment 42
1.6 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Saville Assessment 38
1.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Saville Assessment 50
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Saville Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Saville Assessment 60
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Saville Assessment 55
0.1 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 6 | 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; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 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