Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Glider AI vs isolved
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Glider AI leads isolved by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Glider AI, filed under Assessment, finishes on 52 and isolved, filed under ATS-integrated, on 47, 5 points apart. Glider AI leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while isolved leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Glider AI 68, isolved 45 — and at an 18% weight it carries 72% of the weighted advantage Glider AI holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Glider AI5
- isolved1
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency68 vs 45
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Glider AI is filed under Assessment AI, isolved under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Glider AI is in scope of
| Record | Glider AI | isolved |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2020 | 1986 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight63% of the movement so far
Glider AI68isolved454.1 weighted points to Glider AI
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight75% of the movement so far
Glider AI40isolved470.8 weighted points to isolved
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight87% of the movement so far
Glider AI35isolved300.8 weighted points to Glider AI
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight93% of the movement so far
Glider AI52isolved500.4 weighted points to Glider AI
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
Glider AI60isolved560.3 weighted points to Glider AI
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Glider AI54isolved530.1 weighted points to Glider AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus isolved, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | isolved | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 45 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 53 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 47 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 52F | 47F | +5 | +4.9 |
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 | Glider AI | isolved | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Glider AI and isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 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.