§ The result
iCIMS leads Wonderlic on all 7 criteria.
iCIMS sits 12 points above Wonderlic under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 43 — with iCIMS filed under ATS-integrated and Wonderlic under Assessment. iCIMS leads every one of the 7 criteria, Wonderlic none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Article 11 Technical Documentation, iCIMS 58 to Wonderlic 52. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (iCIMS 68, Wonderlic 48, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
iCIMS is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iCIMS | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2000 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · Wonderlic 48
3.6 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iCIMS 56 · Wonderlic 38
2.7 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · Wonderlic 25
1.9 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · Wonderlic 52
1.2 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · Wonderlic 33
1.1 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · Wonderlic 52
0.7 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 48 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 38 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 43 (F) | +12 | +11.8 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 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% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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