§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Pulsifi on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai finishes 23 points clear of Pulsifi inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 56 against 33. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Pulsifi leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Pulsifi 30, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
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
Pulsifi and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Pulsifi | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SG | AU |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pulsifi 30 · Sapia.ai 70
8.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pulsifi 20 · Sapia.ai 52
5.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pulsifi 40 · Sapia.ai 62
3.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pulsifi 28 · Sapia.ai 50
2.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pulsifi 25 · Sapia.ai 35
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pulsifi 46 · Sapia.ai 62
1.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pulsifi 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -23.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -23 beside that -23.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pulsifi minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Pulsifi | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 70 | -40 | -8.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 52 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 46 | 62 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 56 (F) | -23 | -23.3 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 7 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pulsifi 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