HomeCompareEqualture vs Harver

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Equalture vs Harver

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Harver leads Equalture on 4 of the 7 criteria.

Harver sits 12 points above Equalture under rubric v1.0, 56 against 44, with both filed under Assessment. Harver leads 4 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 3 are level, so Equalture is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 4 Harver leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Equalture 38 to Harver 40. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Equalture 40, Harver 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 59% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Equalture and Harver are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordEqualtureHarver
Price tierHighEnterprise
HeadquartersNLNL
Founded20182015

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 59% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Equalture 40 · Harver 80

    7.2 weighted points to Harver

  2. 20% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Equalture 45 · Harver 65

    4.0 weighted points to Harver

  3. 15% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Equalture 30 · Harver 35

    0.8 weighted points to Harver

  4. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Equalture 38 · Harver 40

    0.2 weighted points to Harver

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.2.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Equalture minus Harver.

CategoryWeightEqualtureHarverΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4565-20-4.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%4080-40-7.2
FRIA Support15%3035-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5050--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3840-2-0.2
Customer Documentation8%6060--
Total100%44 (F)56 (F)-12-12.2

§ 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.

CriterionWeightEqualtureHarver
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%41Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain10
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%197Sources on the vendor's own domain100Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Equalture last reviewed
August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Harver last reviewed
May 21, 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.