HomeCompareHarver vs HiredScore

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Harver vs HiredScore

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

4 points separate Harver and HiredScore.

Harver (Assessment) edges HiredScore (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 52. Harver leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while HiredScore leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 3 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 80, HiredScore 55 — and at an 18% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Harver is filed under Assessment AI, HiredScore under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordHarverHiredScore
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersNLUS
Founded20152012

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Harver 80 · HiredScore 55

    4.5 weighted points to Harver

  2. 12% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Harver 50 · HiredScore 60

    1.2 weighted points to HiredScore

  3. 15% weight · 91% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Harver 35 · HiredScore 30

    0.8 weighted points to Harver

  4. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Harver 40 · HiredScore 35

    0.6 weighted points to Harver

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Harver minus HiredScore.

CategoryWeightHarverHiredScoreΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%6565--
Bias Audit Transparency18%8055+25+4.5
FRIA Support15%3530+5+0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5060-10-1.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%4035+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%6060--
Total100%56 (F)52 (F)+4+4.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHarverHiredScore
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%30Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain10Audit reportSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%10Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%1001
Customer Documentation8%10Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
All criteria100%100Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain72Audit reportSources on a separate domain

Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; HiredScore has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 7 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiredScore sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 19 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 9 for HiredScore, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Harver last reviewed
May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HiredScore 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.