§ The result
1 point separates Equalture and Wonderlic.
Within the Assessment cohort, Equalture edges Wonderlic by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 44 to 43. Equalture leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Equalture 55, Wonderlic 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 59% of the weighted advantage Equalture holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Equalture
Equalture is a game-based pre-employment assessment platform whose short browser games measure candidates' cognitive abilities and behavioural tendencies and convert them into a Fit Score ranked against an employer-specific "Success Profile" derived from that employer's own top performers.
Vendor profile
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Equalture and Wonderlic 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 | Equalture | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Equalture 55 · Wonderlic 38
2.5 weighted points to Equalture
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Equalture 40 · Wonderlic 48
1.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Equalture 45 · Wonderlic 52
1.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Equalture 30 · Wonderlic 25
0.8 weighted points to Equalture
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Equalture 38 · Wonderlic 33
0.6 weighted points to Equalture
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Equalture 60 · Wonderlic 55
0.4 weighted points to Equalture
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Equalture 50 · Wonderlic 52
0.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Equalture minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Equalture | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 43 (F) | +1 | +1.2 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Equalture | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Equalture last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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