Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) vs Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Export comparison (CSV)Pro→§ The result
1 point separates Juicebox (PeopleGPT) and Pymetrics (Harver Games).
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) edges Pymetrics (Harver Games) (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20%, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 to Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70, 86% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Post-Market Monitoring, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 to Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35.
Vendor profile
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Pymetrics (Harver Games) under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
3.6 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25
1.5 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
0.7 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.6 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Juicebox (PeopleGPT) minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 80 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 35 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (F) | +1 | +0.8 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 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 Juicebox (PeopleGPT) and Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 27 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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.