§ The result
Findem takes the total, Sapia.ai takes more of the criteria.
Findem (Sourcing) edges Sapia.ai (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 58 to 56. Sapia.ai leads more of the criteria than Findem — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Findem leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Findem. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Findem 83, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 93% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
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
Findem 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, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2019 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Sapia.ai 52
5.6 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Sapia.ai 70
2.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Sapia.ai 50
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Sapia.ai 35
0.4 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 70 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 52 | +31 | +5.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 56 (F) | +2 | +1.4 |
§ 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 | Findem | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 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 Findem and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 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