§ The result
iMocha and Sapia.ai tie at 56.
iMocha and Sapia.ai tie at 56 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. iMocha leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Sapia.ai 3, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — iMocha 44, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 3 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
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
iMocha and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iMocha | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | AU |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iMocha 44 · Sapia.ai 52
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iMocha 66 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iMocha 38 · Sapia.ai 35
0.4 weighted points to iMocha
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iMocha 68 · Sapia.ai 70
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iMocha 66 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iMocha 64 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iMocha 48 · Sapia.ai 50
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iMocha minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | iMocha | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 70 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 56 (F) | - | -0.5 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 16 | 4 | 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; 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 iMocha and 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 iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iMocha 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