§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Humanly on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 14 points above Humanly under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Sapia.ai filed under Assessment and Humanly under Screening. Sapia.ai leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Humanly is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Sapia.ai leads is Human Oversight Design, Humanly 58 to Sapia.ai 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Humanly 45, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
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
Humanly is filed under Screening AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Humanly | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2018 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Humanly 45 · Sapia.ai 70
5.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Humanly 40 · Sapia.ai 62
3.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Humanly 30 · Sapia.ai 50
2.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Humanly 40 · Sapia.ai 52
2.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Humanly 52 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Humanly 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -14.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Humanly minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Humanly | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 70 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 56 (F) | -14 | -14.1 |
§ 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 | Humanly | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Humanly last reviewed
- June 7, 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