§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Fountain on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 12 points above Fountain under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 44 — with Sapia.ai filed under Assessment and Fountain under Screening. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Fountain none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Fountain 58 to Sapia.ai 62. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Fountain 30, Sapia.ai 52) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Fountain 50, Sapia.ai 70), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
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
Fountain is filed under Screening AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Fountain | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fountain 50 · Sapia.ai 70
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fountain 30 · Sapia.ai 52
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fountain 40 · Sapia.ai 50
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fountain 55 · Sapia.ai 62
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fountain 52 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fountain 30 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fountain 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fountain minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Fountain | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 56 (F) | -12 | -12.2 |
§ 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 | Fountain | 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% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fountain 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