Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Sapia.ai
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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Greenhouse leads Sapia.ai on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 11 points above Sapia.ai, filed under Assessment: 67 (D) against 56 (F) under rubric v1.0. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria, Sapia.ai none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Greenhouse 64 to Sapia.ai 62. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Greenhouse 86, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 57% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Sapia.ai0
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 52
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Sapia.ai is in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight57% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Sapia.ai526.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight72% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Sapia.ai701.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight82% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Sapia.ai351.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Sapia.ai501.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight96% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Sapia.ai620.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Sapia.ai620.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Sapia.ai620.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 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 +10.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Sapia.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 70 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 52 | +34 | +6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 56F | +11 | +10.7 |
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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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.