Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Sapia.ai
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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Sapia.ai leads hackajob on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai, filed under Assessment, comes out 11 points above hackajob, filed under Sourcing: 56 against 45 under rubric v1.0. Of the 7 criteria hackajob wins none, and the narrowest lead Sapia.ai holds is on Customer Documentation, hackajob 60 to Sapia.ai 62. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 20, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob0
- Sapia.ai7
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 52
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Sapia.ai is in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | AU |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight51% of the movement so far
hackajob20Sapia.ai525.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight69% of the movement so far
hackajob60Sapia.ai702.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight82% of the movement so far
hackajob38Sapia.ai501.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight89% of the movement so far
hackajob55Sapia.ai620.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob58Sapia.ai620.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight99% of the movement so far
hackajob32Sapia.ai350.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60Sapia.ai620.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 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 -11.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Sapia.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 70 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 52 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 56F | -11 | -11.2 |
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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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.