§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, softgarden takes more of the criteria.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) sits 14 points above softgarden under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Pymetrics (Harver Games) filed under Assessment and softgarden under ATS-integrated. softgarden leads more of the criteria than Pymetrics (Harver Games) — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Pymetrics (Harver Games). One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80, softgarden 22) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Pymetrics (Harver Games) is filed under Assessment AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80 · softgarden 22
10.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70 · softgarden 42
5.6 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35 · softgarden 44
1.1 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50 · softgarden 58
1.0 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60 · softgarden 54
0.9 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +13.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pymetrics (Harver Games) minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 42 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 22 | +58 | +10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +13.9 |
§ 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 | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 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.