HomeCompareFetcher vs Wonderlic

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fetcher vs Wonderlic

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Wonderlic leads Fetcher by 6 points.

Wonderlic scores 43 and Fetcher 37 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Fetcher and Wonderlic each lead 2 of the 7 criteria, with 3 level, though the side of the split Wonderlic holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, Wonderlic 52 — and at a 20% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordFetcherWonderlic
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20141937

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 44% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fetcher 27 · Wonderlic 52

    5.0 weighted points to Wonderlic

  2. 18% weight · 76% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Fetcher 28 · Wonderlic 48

    3.6 weighted points to Wonderlic

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

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Fetcher 55 · Wonderlic 38

    2.5 weighted points to Fetcher

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

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Fetcher 35 · Wonderlic 33

    0.2 weighted points to Fetcher

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -5.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 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 -5.8.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fetcher minus Wonderlic.

CategoryWeightFetcherWonderlicΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2752-25-5.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2848-20-3.6
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5538+17+2.5
Human Oversight Design12%5252--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3533+2+0.2
Customer Documentation8%5555--
Total100%37 (F)43 (F)-6-5.8

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFetcherWonderlic
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%136Sources on the vendor's own domain96Sources on the vendor's own domain

Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 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 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Fetcher last reviewed
July 17, 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.