§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Intervue.io on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 25 points between Sapia.ai (Assessment) and Intervue.io (Video interview): 56 for Sapia.ai, 31 for Intervue.io. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Intervue.io leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Intervue.io 28, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
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
Intervue.io is filed under Video interview AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | Intervue.io | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | AU |
| Founded | 2020 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Intervue.io 28 · Sapia.ai 70
8.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Intervue.io 12 · Sapia.ai 52
7.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Intervue.io 38 · Sapia.ai 62
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Intervue.io 30 · Sapia.ai 50
2.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Intervue.io 22 · Sapia.ai 35
1.9 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Intervue.io 54 · Sapia.ai 62
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Intervue.io 50 · Sapia.ai 62
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -25 beside that -25.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Intervue.io minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Intervue.io | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 70 | -42 | -8.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 52 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 31 (F) | 56 (F) | -25 | -25.5 |
§ 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 | Intervue.io | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 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 Intervue.io and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Intervue.io last reviewed
- September 25, 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