§ The result
Harver leads Feenyx by 16 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Harver opens a 16-point lead on Feenyx, 56 to 40, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Harver: Harver is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Feenyx on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Feenyx 25, Harver 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
Feenyx and Harver are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Harver 80
9.9 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Harver 65
4.6 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Harver 35
1.5 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Harver 50
1.0 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Harver 55
0.8 weighted points to Harver
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Harver 60
0.4 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Harver 40
0.2 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -16.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 65 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 80 | -55 | -9.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 56 (F) | -16 | -16.4 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 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.
§ Where next