Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Harver
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Harver leads hackajob by 11 points.
Harver sits 11 points above hackajob under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 45 — with Harver filed under Assessment and hackajob under Sourcing. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Harver, with 1 level: Harver is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and hackajob on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (hackajob 20, Harver 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 86% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob2
- Harver4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 80
- 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.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Harver under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Harver is in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | NL |
| Founded | 2014 | 2015 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight80% of the movement so far
hackajob20Harver8010.8 weighted points to Harver
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight87% of the movement so far
hackajob60Harver651.0 weighted points to Harver
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
hackajob55Harver500.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob32Harver350.4 weighted points to Harver
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob58Harver550.4 weighted points to hackajob
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob38Harver400.2 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 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 -11.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Harver, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 65 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 80 | -60 | -10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 56F | -11 | -11.4 |
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 | hackajob | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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.