§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads impress.ai by 18 points.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) finishes 18 points clear of impress.ai under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 38 — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while impress.ai leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — impress.ai 22, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
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
impress.ai is filed under Screening 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, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | impress.ai | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
10.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
7.0 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.8 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
0.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
impress.ai 52 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -18.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -18.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 70 | -35 | -7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 80 | -58 | -10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 56 (F) | -18 | -18.1 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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