Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Saville Assessment
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
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
3 points separate Saville Assessment and hackajob.
Saville Assessment holds a 3-point edge over hackajob under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 2 each to hackajob and Saville Assessment, with 3 level, and the weighted points on the side Saville Assessment holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 20, Saville Assessment 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob2
- Saville Assessment2
- Level3
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Saville Assessment under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Saville Assessment is in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2004 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight52% of the movement so far
hackajob20Saville Assessment424.0 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight78% of the movement so far
hackajob60Saville Assessment502.0 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight94% of the movement so far
hackajob32Saville Assessment401.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob58Saville Assessment550.4 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -2.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Saville Assessment, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 48F | -3 | -2.7 |
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 | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 6 | 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; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 82 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment 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.