§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, Glider AI takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Pymetrics (Harver Games) and Glider AI finish 4 points apart, 56 to 52, as two Assessment entries. Glider AI leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), yet Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes Article 11 Technical Documentation, which carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Glider AI 52, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
§ The record
Glider AI and Pymetrics (Harver Games) are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Glider AI | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2020 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Glider AI 52 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
3.6 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Glider AI 68 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
2.2 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Glider AI 35 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25
1.5 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Glider AI 54 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.9 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Glider AI 55 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50
0.6 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Glider AI 40 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
0.6 weighted points to Glider AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Glider AI 60 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.4 weighted points to Glider AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 80 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 60 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 56 (F) | -4 | -3.6 |
§ 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 | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 9 | 2 | 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; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Glider AI and Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) last reviewed
- May 21, 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