§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Fetcher on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai finishes 19 points clear of Fetcher under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 37 — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Fetcher none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Fetcher 55 to Sapia.ai 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, Sapia.ai 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
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
Fetcher 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 | Fetcher | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · Sapia.ai 70
8.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · Sapia.ai 52
4.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · Sapia.ai 50
1.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · Sapia.ai 35
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · Sapia.ai 62
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · Sapia.ai 62
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -19.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -19 beside that -19.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 70 | -43 | -8.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 52 | -24 | -4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 56 (F) | -19 | -19.0 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 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 Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 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