§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Hogan Assessments by 9 points.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Hogan Assessments 47 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Sapia.ai leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Hogan Assessments leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Hogan Assessments 50, Sapia.ai 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
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
Hogan Assessments and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hogan Assessments | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 1987 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hogan Assessments 50 · Sapia.ai 70
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hogan Assessments 52 · Sapia.ai 62
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hogan Assessments 44 · Sapia.ai 52
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hogan Assessments 52 · Sapia.ai 62
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hogan Assessments 40 · Sapia.ai 50
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hogan Assessments 36 · Sapia.ai 35
0.1 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.2 — 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 -9 beside that -9.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hogan Assessments minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Hogan Assessments | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 56 (F) | -9 | -9.2 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 6 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 Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 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