§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Jobma on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Jobma 49 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Video interview cohorts. Sapia.ai leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Jobma is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Sapia.ai leads is Human Oversight Design, Jobma 60 to Sapia.ai 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jobma 55, Sapia.ai 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Jobma
AI video interviewing platform offering one-way (pre-recorded), live, and agentic AI interviews with automated transcription and AI scoring of candidate video, audio, and written responses as recruiter decision-support.
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
Jobma 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 | Jobma | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jobma 55 · Sapia.ai 70
3.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jobma 40 · Sapia.ai 52
2.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jobma 56 · Sapia.ai 62
0.9 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jobma 44 · Sapia.ai 50
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jobma 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -7.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jobma minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Jobma | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 70 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 56 (F) | -7 | -7.0 |
§ 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 | Jobma | 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% | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 17 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 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 Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jobma 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