§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, hackajob takes more of the criteria.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) sits 11 points above hackajob under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 45 — with Pymetrics (Harver Games) filed under Assessment and hackajob under Sourcing. hackajob leads more of the criteria than Pymetrics (Harver Games) — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Pymetrics (Harver Games). One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (hackajob 20, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 82% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
§ The record
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Pymetrics (Harver Games) under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | hackajob | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
hackajob 20 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
10.8 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
hackajob 60 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
2.0 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
hackajob 32 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25
1.1 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
hackajob 55 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50
0.6 weighted points to hackajob
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
hackajob 60 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.4 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
hackajob 38 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
0.4 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
hackajob 58 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.3 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
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 15.5 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 -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 70 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 80 | -60 | -10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 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 | hackajob | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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.
§ Where next