Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harver vs iMocha
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Harver and iMocha tie at 56.
Harver and iMocha tie at 56 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Harver leads 1 of the 7 criteria and iMocha 6, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harver 80, iMocha 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 100% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 1 criterion it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harver1
- iMocha6
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency80 vs 44
- 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.
Harver and iMocha are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Harver | iMocha |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | IN |
| Founded | 2015 | 2015 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight53% of the movement so far
Harver80iMocha446.5 weighted points to Harver
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight66% of the movement so far
Harver50iMocha641.7 weighted points to iMocha
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight80% of the movement so far
Harver55iMocha661.6 weighted points to iMocha
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight88% of the movement so far
Harver40iMocha481.0 weighted points to iMocha
- 5
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight92% of the movement so far
Harver65iMocha680.6 weighted points to iMocha
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight96% of the movement so far
Harver60iMocha660.5 weighted points to iMocha
- 7
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Harver35iMocha380.4 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus iMocha, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harver | iMocha | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 68 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 44 | +36 | +6.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 66 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 64 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 66 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 56F | 56F | - | +0.7 |
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 | Harver | iMocha | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iMocha last reviewed
- July 17, 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
Scored against