§ The result
Saville Assessment leads HighMatch by 5 points.
Saville Assessment scores 48 and HighMatch 43 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Saville Assessment: Saville Assessment is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and HighMatch on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HighMatch 30, Saville Assessment 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
Vendor profile
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
HighMatch and Saville Assessment are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HighMatch | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2005 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HighMatch 30 · Saville Assessment 42
2.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HighMatch 30 · Saville Assessment 40
1.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HighMatch 45 · Saville Assessment 50
1.0 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HighMatch 60 · Saville Assessment 55
0.6 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HighMatch 52 · Saville Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HighMatch 40 · Saville Assessment 38
0.2 weighted points to HighMatch
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HighMatch 58 · Saville Assessment 60
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 48 (F) | -5 | -4.4 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 75 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment 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