§ The result
HiPeople leads Sapia.ai by 5 points.
HiPeople scores 61 (D) and Sapia.ai 56 (F) under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. HiPeople leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Sapia.ai leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 84, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 79% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
Vendor profile
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
HiPeople and Sapia.ai 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 | HiPeople | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | AU |
| Founded | 2019 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Sapia.ai 52
5.8 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Sapia.ai 70
1.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Sapia.ai 50
1.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +5.1 — 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 +5 beside that +5.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 52 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 56 (F) | +5 | +5.1 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai 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