Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Sova Assessment
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
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
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. Of the 7 criteria Sova Assessment wins none, and the narrowest lead Greenhouse holds is on FRIA Support, Greenhouse 42 to Sova Assessment 40. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Greenhouse 86, Sova Assessment 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Sova Assessment0
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 38
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sova Assessment under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Sova Assessment is in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight46% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Sova Assessment388.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight70% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Sova Assessment554.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight81% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Sova Assessment402.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight91% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Sova Assessment521.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight98% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Sova Assessment551.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Sova Assessment400.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Sova Assessment620.2 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 67D | 48F | +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.