Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Pymetrics (Harver Games) vs Sapia.ai
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) and Sapia.ai tie at 56.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) and Sapia.ai tie at 56 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Sapia.ai 5, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80, Sapia.ai 52) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 100% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 1 criterion it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Pymetrics (Harver Games)1
- Sapia.ai5
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency80 vs 52
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2013 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight47% of the movement so far
Pymetrics (Harver Games)80Sapia.ai525.0 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight64% of the movement so far
Pymetrics (Harver Games)35Sapia.ai501.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight78% of the movement so far
Pymetrics (Harver Games)25Sapia.ai351.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
Pymetrics (Harver Games)50Sapia.ai621.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
Pymetrics (Harver Games)55Sapia.ai620.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Pymetrics (Harver Games)60Sapia.ai620.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pymetrics (Harver Games) minus Sapia.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 70 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 52 | +28 | +5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56F | 56F | - | -0.6 |
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 | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 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 Pymetrics (Harver Games) and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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.