Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Greenhouse leads Pymetrics (Harver Games) on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse sits 11 points above Pymetrics (Harver Games) under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 56 (F) — with Greenhouse filed under ATS-integrated and Pymetrics (Harver Games) under Assessment. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria, Pymetrics (Harver Games) none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Greenhouse 64 to Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60. Even Post-Market Monitoring, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Greenhouse 58, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35, 12% weight), is only 25% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Pymetrics (Harver Games)0
- Widest raw gap
- Post-Market Monitoring58 vs 35
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Post-Market Monitoring12% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Pymetrics (Harver Games) under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight25% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Pymetrics (Harver Games)352.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight47% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Pymetrics (Harver Games)252.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight64% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Pymetrics (Harver Games)501.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight79% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Pymetrics (Harver Games)701.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight88% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Pymetrics (Harver Games)801.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight95% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Pymetrics (Harver Games)550.7 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Pymetrics (Harver Games)600.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +11.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Pymetrics (Harver Games), coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 70 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 80 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 60 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 50 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 35 | +23 | +2.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 56F | +11 | +11.2 |
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 | Greenhouse | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | 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 |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 Greenhouse and Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 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.