Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Test Partnership
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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Greenhouse leads Test Partnership on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Greenhouse (ATS-integrated) opens a 17-point lead on Test Partnership (Assessment), 67 (D) to 50 (F). Test Partnership leads none of the 7 criteria, and Greenhouse is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Greenhouse 86, Test Partnership 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Test Partnership0
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Test Partnership under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Test Partnership is in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight40% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Test Partnership486.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight65% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Test Partnership574.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight82% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Test Partnership333.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight88% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Test Partnership571.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight94% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Test Partnership581.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Test Partnership360.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Test Partnership620.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +17.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +17 beside that +17.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Test Partnership, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 57 | +21 | +4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 48 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 57 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 33 | +25 | +3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 50F | +17 | +17.1 |
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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse and Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership last reviewed
- September 25, 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.