Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harver vs Sapia.ai
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Harver and Sapia.ai tie at 56.
Harver and Sapia.ai tie at 56 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Harver leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Sapia.ai 5, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harver 80, Sapia.ai 52) 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
- Sapia.ai5
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency80 vs 52
- 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 Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Harver | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | NL | AU |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight51% of the movement so far
Harver80Sapia.ai525.0 weighted points to Harver
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight66% of the movement so far
Harver50Sapia.ai621.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight78% of the movement so far
Harver40Sapia.ai501.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight88% of the movement so far
Harver55Sapia.ai621.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 5
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight98% of the movement so far
Harver65Sapia.ai701.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Harver60Sapia.ai620.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 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 +0.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Sapia.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 70 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 52 | +28 | +5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56F | 56F | - | +0.2 |
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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai 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.
Where next
Scored against