§ The result
Hireology leads Saville Assessment by 9 points.
Hireology scores 57 and Saville Assessment 48 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Hireology and Saville Assessment each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Hireology holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, Saville Assessment 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 73% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
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
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Saville Assessment under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Saville Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hireology | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Saville Assessment 42
7.4 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Saville Assessment 38
2.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Saville Assessment 40
0.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Saville Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Saville Assessment 55
0.2 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Saville Assessment 60
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 42 | +41 | +7.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 38 | +21 | +2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 48 (F) | +9 | +8.8 |
§ 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 | Hireology | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 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 |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 Hireology and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology 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