Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Harver
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Harver leads Harri by 15 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Harver (Assessment) opens a 15-point lead on Harri (ATS-integrated), 56 to 41. Harri takes 2 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 3 for Harver, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, 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.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri2
- Harver3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 80
- 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.
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Harver under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Harver is in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight56% of the movement so far
Harri22Harver8010.4 weighted points to Harver
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight89% of the movement so far
Harri35Harver656.0 weighted points to Harver
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight96% of the movement so far
Harri44Harver351.3 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Harri52Harver550.4 weighted points to Harver
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri52Harver500.2 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 41F | 56F | -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.