Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Gloat vs Saville Assessment
Gloat
Gloat is an AI-powered internal talent marketplace and "agentic HR" platform that matches an employer's existing employees to internal job openings, gigs, projects, mentorships, and learning based on inferred skills and career goals.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Saville Assessment takes the total, Gloat takes more of the criteria.
Saville Assessment holds a 1-point edge over Gloat under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Gloat leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Saville Assessment, yet Saville Assessment takes FRIA Support, which carries 15% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Gloat 28, Saville Assessment 40 — and at a 15% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Gloat4
- Saville Assessment3
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support28 vs 40
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Gloat is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Saville Assessment under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Gloat | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2004 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight37% of the movement so far
Gloat28Saville Assessment401.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight54% of the movement so far
Gloat62Saville Assessment550.8 weighted points to Gloat
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight69% of the movement so far
Gloat38Saville Assessment420.7 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight79% of the movement so far
Gloat42Saville Assessment380.5 weighted points to Gloat
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight88% of the movement so far
Gloat58Saville Assessment550.4 weighted points to Gloat
- 6
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight97% of the movement so far
Gloat48Saville Assessment500.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Gloat62Saville Assessment600.2 weighted points to Gloat
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gloat minus Saville Assessment, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Gloat | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47F | 48F | -1 | -1.0 |
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 | Gloat | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment 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: 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gloat last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment 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.