§ The result
Harver leads Harri by 15 points.
Harver finishes 15 points clear of Harri under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 41 — across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Harver leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Harri leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harri 22, Harver 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Harver under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Harver is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Harri | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harri 22 · Harver 80
10.4 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harri 35 · Harver 65
6.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harri 44 · Harver 35
1.3 weighted points to Harri
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harri 52 · Harver 55
0.4 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harri 52 · Harver 50
0.2 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -15.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 65 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 80 | -58 | -10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 35 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 56 (F) | -15 | -15.3 |
§ 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 | Harri | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 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 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 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.
§ Where next