§ The result
Greenhouse leads Sapia.ai on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse sits 11 points above Sapia.ai under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 56 (F) — with Greenhouse filed under ATS-integrated and Sapia.ai under Assessment. 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.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| 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.
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Greenhouse 86 · Sapia.ai 52
6.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Greenhouse 78 · Sapia.ai 70
1.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Greenhouse 42 · Sapia.ai 35
1.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Greenhouse 58 · Sapia.ai 50
1.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Greenhouse 66 · Sapia.ai 62
0.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Greenhouse 64 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Greenhouse 64 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 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.
| 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% | 67 (D) | 56 (F) | +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.
§ Where next