§ The result
3 points separate HiPeople and Sense.
HiPeople (Assessment) edges Sense (Screening) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 58 (F). HiPeople leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Sense leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 84, Sense 72 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 4 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, Sense under Screening 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Sense 72
2.2 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Sense 52
1.0 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Sense 38
0.4 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Sense 60
0.4 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Sense 62
0.3 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Sense 64
0.2 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 72 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 58 (F) | +3 | +3.1 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople and Sense 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: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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