§ The result
Sapia.ai leads micro1 on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Sapia.ai (Assessment) opens a 20-point lead on micro1 (Screening), 56 to 36. micro1 leads none of the 7 criteria, and Sapia.ai is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. The advantage Sapia.ai holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (micro1 20, Sapia.ai 52, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 28% of the weighted points Sapia.ai gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
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
micro1 is filed under Screening AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | micro1 | 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 · 28% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
micro1 20 · Sapia.ai 52
5.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
micro1 50 · Sapia.ai 70
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
micro1 25 · Sapia.ai 50
3.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
micro1 45 · Sapia.ai 62
2.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
micro1 22 · Sapia.ai 35
1.9 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
micro1 48 · Sapia.ai 62
1.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
micro1 45 · Sapia.ai 62
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -20.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -20 beside that -20.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is micro1 minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | micro1 | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 52 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 56 (F) | -20 | -20.3 |
§ 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 | micro1 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 8 | 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 |
micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 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 micro1 and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- micro1 last reviewed
- September 25, 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