§ The result
3 points separate iMocha and SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting.
iMocha (Assessment) edges SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 53. iMocha leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (iMocha 48, SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 40, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 27% of the weighted advantage iMocha holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
Vendor profile
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting is the recruiting module of SAP's cloud HCM suite, using AI (career-site skills matching, job-description generation, resume skills extraction and stack-ranking of applicants) delivered under SAP Business AI and the Joule assistant.
§ The record
iMocha is filed under Assessment AI, SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only iMocha is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iMocha | SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | DE |
| Founded | 2015 | 1972 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iMocha 48 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 40
1.0 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iMocha 66 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 60
0.9 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iMocha 44 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 40
0.7 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iMocha 38 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 35
0.4 weighted points to iMocha
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iMocha 68 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 70
0.4 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iMocha 66 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 62
0.3 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iMocha 64 · SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 62
0.2 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iMocha minus SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting.
| Category | Weight | iMocha | SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 70 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 53 (F) | +3 | +3.2 |
§ 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 | iMocha | SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for iMocha and SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iMocha last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 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.