HomeCompareHarri vs SHL

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Harri vs SHL

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

SHL leads Harri by 10 points.

SHL sits 10 points above Harri under rubric v1.0 — 51 against 41 — with SHL filed under Assessment and Harri under ATS-integrated. SHL leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Harri leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harri 22, SHL 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage SHL holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, SHL under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only SHL is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordHarriSHL
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20121977

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 37% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Harri 22 · SHL 50

    5.0 weighted points to SHL

  2. 20% weight · 73% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Harri 35 · SHL 60

    5.0 weighted points to SHL

  3. 15% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Harri 44 · SHL 30

    2.1 weighted points to Harri

  4. 15% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Harri 52 · SHL 58

    0.9 weighted points to SHL

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Harri 52 · SHL 58

    0.7 weighted points to SHL

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Harri minus SHL.

CategoryWeightHarriSHLΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3560-25-5.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2250-28-5.0
FRIA Support15%4430+14+2.1
Data Governance Disclosure15%5258-6-0.9
Human Oversight Design12%5258-6-0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%4040--
Customer Documentation8%6060--
Total100%41 (F)51 (F)-10-9.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHarriSHL
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%22Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%41Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%198Sources on the vendor's own domain154Sources on the vendor's own domain

Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; SHL has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for SHL, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Harri last reviewed
August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
SHL last reviewed
June 7, 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.