§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, iCIMS takes more of the criteria.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) (Assessment) edges iCIMS (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 56 to 55. iCIMS leads more of the criteria than Pymetrics (Harver Games) — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Pymetrics (Harver Games). Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (iCIMS 58, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70), which is 47% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, FRIA Support, iCIMS 38 to Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25.
Vendor profile
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Vendor profile
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
§ The record
iCIMS is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Pymetrics (Harver Games) under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iCIMS | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2000 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
2.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
2.2 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25
1.9 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50
1.0 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
0.8 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iCIMS 56 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.6 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.6 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.9 — 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 -1 beside that -0.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 70 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 80 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 56 (F) | -1 | -0.9 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) last reviewed
- May 21, 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