§ The result
2 points separate Sense and Harver.
Sense (Screening) edges Harver (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 58 to 56. Sense leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Human Oversight Design, while Harver leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 50, Sense 64 — and at a 12% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Sense holds across the 5 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Harver is filed under Assessment AI, Sense under Screening 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 | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harver 50 · Sense 64
1.7 weighted points to Sense
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · Sense 72
1.4 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · Sense 52
1.4 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · Sense 60
1.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harver 35 · Sense 38
0.4 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · Sense 58
0.4 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harver 60 · Sense 62
0.2 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 60 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 72 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 64 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 58 (F) | -2 | -1.7 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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