§ The result
iMocha leads Saville Assessment by 8 points.
iMocha finishes 8 points ahead of Saville Assessment under rubric v1.0, 56 to 48, both scored as Assessment entries. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of iMocha: iMocha is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Saville Assessment on FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — iMocha 68, Saville Assessment 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% 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
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
iMocha and Saville Assessment 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 | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iMocha 68 · Saville Assessment 50
3.6 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iMocha 66 · Saville Assessment 55
1.6 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iMocha 48 · Saville Assessment 38
1.2 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iMocha 64 · Saville Assessment 55
1.1 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iMocha 66 · Saville Assessment 60
0.5 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iMocha 44 · Saville Assessment 42
0.4 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iMocha 38 · Saville Assessment 40
0.3 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iMocha minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | iMocha | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 50 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 42 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 66 | 55 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 48 (F) | +8 | +8.1 |
§ 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 | iMocha | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 34 | 6 | 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; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for iMocha and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iMocha last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 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