§ The result
4 points separate isolved and Wonderlic.
isolved (ATS-integrated) edges Wonderlic (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 43. isolved leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, is both the widest raw gap (isolved 53, Wonderlic 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage isolved holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
Vendor profile
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
isolved is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Wonderlic under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | isolved | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Wonderlic 38
2.3 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · Wonderlic 33
1.7 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Wonderlic 25
0.8 weighted points to isolved
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Wonderlic 48
0.5 weighted points to Wonderlic
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to isolved
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
isolved 56 · Wonderlic 55
0.1 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 38 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 33 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 43 (F) | +4 | +4.2 |
§ 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 | isolved | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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