Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HighMatch vs Wonderlic
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
HighMatch and Wonderlic tie at 43.
HighMatch and Wonderlic, both in the Assessment cohort, tie at 43 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. HighMatch leads 5 of the 7 criteria and Wonderlic 2, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HighMatch 30, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 70% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HighMatch5
- Wonderlic2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency30 vs 48
- 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.
HighMatch and Wonderlic are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HighMatch | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2005 | 1937 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight34% of the movement so far
HighMatch30Wonderlic483.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight56% of the movement so far
HighMatch52Wonderlic382.1 weighted points to HighMatch
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight71% of the movement so far
HighMatch45Wonderlic521.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight81% of the movement so far
HighMatch60Wonderlic521.0 weighted points to HighMatch
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight90% of the movement so far
HighMatch40Wonderlic330.8 weighted points to HighMatch
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight97% of the movement so far
HighMatch30Wonderlic250.8 weighted points to HighMatch
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HighMatch58Wonderlic550.2 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.5 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 +0.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Wonderlic, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43F | 43F | - | +0.3 |
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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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.