Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Saville Assessment
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
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
Saville Assessment leads Harri by 7 points.
Saville Assessment scores 48 and Harri 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Saville Assessment, with 1 level: Saville Assessment is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Harri on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harri 22, Saville Assessment 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri2
- Saville Assessment4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated 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 | Harri | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2004 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight44% of the movement so far
Harri22Saville Assessment423.6 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight80% of the movement so far
Harri35Saville Assessment503.0 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight87% of the movement so far
Harri44Saville Assessment400.6 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight93% of the movement so far
Harri52Saville Assessment550.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Harri52Saville Assessment550.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri40Saville Assessment380.2 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Saville Assessment, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 48F | -7 | -6.6 |
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 | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 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.