§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Lever on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Lever 49 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Sapia.ai is ahead of Lever on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Human Oversight Design at Lever 60 to Sapia.ai 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Lever 52, Sapia.ai 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Lever
Lever is an AI-powered applicant tracking system and recruiting CRM that centralizes sourcing, candidate relationship management, AI candidate matching (Talent Fit), and hiring analytics for high-growth employers.
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
Lever is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Lever | 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 · 47% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Lever 52 · Sapia.ai 70
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Lever 42 · Sapia.ai 52
1.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Lever 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Lever 45 · Sapia.ai 50
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Lever 32 · Sapia.ai 35
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Lever 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Lever 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 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 -7.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Lever minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Lever | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 56 (F) | -7 | -7.6 |
§ 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 | Lever | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Lever has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 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 Lever and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Lever, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Lever 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