Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Test Partnership
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
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
Test Partnership leads hackajob by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Test Partnership, filed under Assessment, finishes on 50 and hackajob, filed under Sourcing, on 45, 5 points apart. hackajob takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 4 for Test Partnership, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 20, Test Partnership 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob3
- Test Partnership4
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 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.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | hackajob | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight67% of the movement so far
hackajob20Test Partnership485.0 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight75% of the movement so far
hackajob60Test Partnership570.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight83% of the movement so far
hackajob32Test Partnership360.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
hackajob38Test Partnership330.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight96% of the movement so far
hackajob55Test Partnership580.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob60Test Partnership620.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob58Test Partnership570.1 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Test Partnership, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 48 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 36 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 50F | -5 | -4.8 |
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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 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% | 6 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; 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 Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 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.