§ The result
Glider AI takes the total, Test Partnership takes more of the criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, Glider AI edges Test Partnership by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 50. Test Partnership leads more of the criteria than Glider AI — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Glider AI leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Glider AI. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Glider AI 68, Test Partnership 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 81% of the weighted advantage Glider AI holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
Glider AI and Test Partnership are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Glider AI | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2020 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Glider AI 68 · Test Partnership 48
3.6 weighted points to Glider AI
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Glider AI 52 · Test Partnership 57
1.0 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Glider AI 40 · Test Partnership 33
0.8 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Glider AI 54 · Test Partnership 57
0.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Glider AI 55 · Test Partnership 58
0.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Glider AI 60 · Test Partnership 62
0.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Glider AI 35 · Test Partnership 36
0.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.3 — 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 +2 beside that +2.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 48 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 50 (F) | +2 | +2.3 |
§ 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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 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 | 4 | 1 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Glider AI and Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership 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.
§ Where next