§ The result
Harver leads Paradox on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Harver finishes 15 points clear of Paradox under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 41 — across the Assessment and Scheduling cohorts. Harver leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Paradox is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Harver leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Harver 40 to Paradox 35. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Harver 80, Paradox 50, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Harver is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Harver is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Harver | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · Paradox 50
5.4 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · Paradox 40
5.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harver 35 · Paradox 25
1.5 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · Paradox 45
1.5 weighted points to Harver
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harver 60 · Paradox 45
1.2 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · Paradox 35
0.6 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +15.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.2 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 +15.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 40 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 50 | +30 | +5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 45 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 41 (F) | +15 | +15.2 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 20 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox 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.
§ Where next