§ The result
4 points separate Sapia.ai and Phenom.
Sapia.ai (Assessment) edges Phenom (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 52. Sapia.ai leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Phenom leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Phenom — Phenom 75, Sapia.ai 52, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
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
Phenom is filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | Phenom | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2010 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Phenom 75 · Sapia.ai 52
4.1 weighted points to Phenom
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Phenom 55 · Sapia.ai 70
3.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Phenom 30 · Sapia.ai 50
2.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Phenom 25 · Sapia.ai 35
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Phenom 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Phenom 60 · Sapia.ai 62
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Phenom 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 -3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Phenom minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Phenom | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 70 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 75 | 52 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 56 (F) | -4 | -3.9 |
§ 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 | Phenom | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 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 Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Phenom last reviewed
- May 21, 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