Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Knockri vs Sova Assessment
Knockri
Knockri runs asynchronous structured behavioural interviews that candidates answer by audio, video or text; it transcribes the answers, uses NLP models to score the work-related behaviours they describe against a skills framework, and produces per-skill scores and ranked shortlists.
Substantial gaps
Video interview
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
1 point separates Sova Assessment and Knockri.
Sova Assessment (Assessment) edges Knockri (Video interview) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Sova Assessment leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Knockri leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (Knockri 55, Sova Assessment 62) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is FRIA Support at 15% (Knockri 35, Sova Assessment 40), 31% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment builds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Knockri2
- Sova Assessment4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Customer Documentation55 vs 62
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Knockri is filed under Video interview AI, Sova Assessment under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Knockri | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | CA | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2015 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight21% of the movement so far
Knockri35Sova Assessment400.8 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight39% of the movement so far
Knockri60Sova Assessment550.6 weighted points to Knockri
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight56% of the movement so far
Knockri35Sova Assessment400.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 4
Customer Documentation
8% weight72% of the movement so far
Knockri55Sova Assessment620.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 5
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight87% of the movement so far
Knockri35Sova Assessment380.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Knockri55Sova Assessment520.4 weighted points to Knockri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.5 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 -1.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Knockri minus Sova Assessment, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Knockri | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47F | 48F | -1 | -1.4 |
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 | Knockri | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 36 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Knockri has 41 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 36 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Knockri and Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 75 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 41 for Knockri, across 7 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Knockri last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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.