§ The result
1 point separates Wonderlic and Mercer | Mettl.
Within the Assessment cohort, Wonderlic edges Mercer | Mettl by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 43 to 42. Wonderlic leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Mercer | Mettl leads 3, including Data Governance Disclosure. Wonderlic takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Mercer | Mettl 38, Wonderlic 52), which is 56% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, Mercer | Mettl 55 to Wonderlic 38.
Vendor profile
Mercer | Mettl
Mercer | Mettl is an online talent assessment and remote-proctoring platform offering psychometric, aptitude, coding, and skills tests plus AI-assisted exam proctoring and scoring for hiring, certification, and L&D.
Vendor profile
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Mercer | Mettl and Wonderlic are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Mercer | Mettl | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Mercer | Mettl 38 · Wonderlic 52
2.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Mercer | Mettl 55 · Wonderlic 38
2.5 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Mercer | Mettl 42 · Wonderlic 48
1.1 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Mercer | Mettl 45 · Wonderlic 52
0.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Mercer | Mettl 38 · Wonderlic 33
0.6 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Mercer | Mettl 28 · Wonderlic 25
0.4 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Mercer | Mettl 52 · Wonderlic 55
0.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.6 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 Mercer | Mettl minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Mercer | Mettl | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 43 (F) | -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 | Mercer | Mettl | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 9 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Mercer | Mettl has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for Mercer | Mettl, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Mercer | Mettl last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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