§ The result
Paycom leads Wonderlic by 7 points.
Paycom scores 50 and Wonderlic 43 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Paycom leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Paycom 62, Wonderlic 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
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
Paycom is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Paycom | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1998 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Paycom 62 · Wonderlic 38
3.6 weighted points to Paycom
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Paycom 68 · Wonderlic 52
3.2 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Paycom 38 · Wonderlic 48
1.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Paycom 30 · Wonderlic 25
0.8 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Paycom 38 · Wonderlic 33
0.6 weighted points to Paycom
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Paycom 60 · Wonderlic 55
0.4 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Paycom 55 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 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 +7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Paycom minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Paycom | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 52 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 50 (F) | 43 (F) | +7 | +7.1 |
§ 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 | Paycom | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 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% | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 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 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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