§ The result
Harver leads Workable by 8 points.
Harver scores 56 and Workable 48 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Harver leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Workable leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 80, Workable 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 64% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 4 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Harver is filed under Assessment AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · Workable 42
6.8 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · Workable 55
2.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harver 35 · Workable 25
1.5 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harver 50 · Workable 62
1.4 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · Workable 58
0.4 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harver 60 · Workable 56
0.3 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · Workable 42
0.2 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 55 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 42 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 48 (F) | +8 | +8.5 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 27 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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