§ The result
Greenhouse leads Sova Assessment on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse finishes 19 points clear of Sova Assessment under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 48 (F) — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria, Sova Assessment none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Greenhouse 42 to Sova Assessment 40. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Greenhouse 86, Sova Assessment 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% 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
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sova Assessment 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 Sova Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Greenhouse | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Greenhouse 86 · Sova Assessment 38
8.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Greenhouse 78 · Sova Assessment 55
4.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Greenhouse 58 · Sova Assessment 40
2.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Greenhouse 64 · Sova Assessment 52
1.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Greenhouse 66 · Sova Assessment 55
1.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Greenhouse 42 · Sova Assessment 40
0.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Greenhouse 64 · Sova Assessment 62
0.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +19.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 55 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 38 | +48 | +8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 52 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 55 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 67 (D) | 48 (F) | +19 | +19.0 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | 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 | 28 | 8 | 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; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse and Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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