§ The result
Harver leads softgarden by 14 points.
Harver sits 14 points above softgarden under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Harver filed under Assessment and softgarden under ATS-integrated. Harver leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while softgarden leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harver 80, softgarden 22) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 65% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Harver is filed under Assessment AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | DE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · softgarden 22
10.4 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · softgarden 42
4.6 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harver 50 · softgarden 58
1.0 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harver 35 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · softgarden 44
0.5 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harver 60 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · softgarden 54
0.1 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Harver | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 42 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 22 | +58 | +10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +14.7 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 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