§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) takes the total, Sapia.ai takes more of the criteria.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) edges Sapia.ai (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. Sapia.ai leads more of the criteria than Juicebox (PeopleGPT) — 4 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Juicebox (PeopleGPT). Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 91% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
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
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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2022 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 · Sapia.ai 52
5.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 · Sapia.ai 70
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50 · Sapia.ai 62
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56 · Sapia.ai 62
0.9 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 · Sapia.ai 50
0.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.5 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 +0.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Juicebox (PeopleGPT) minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 52 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (F) | +1 | +0.3 |
§ 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) | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | 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; 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 Juicebox (PeopleGPT) and Sapia.ai 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: 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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