§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Sapia.ai (Assessment) opens a 23-point lead on Qureos (Screening), 56 to 33. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Qureos none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Qureos 54 to Sapia.ai 62. The advantage Sapia.ai holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Qureos 28, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Sapia.ai gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
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
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Qureos | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AE | AU |
| Founded | 2021 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Sapia.ai 70
8.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Sapia.ai 52
7.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Sapia.ai 62
2.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Sapia.ai 50
1.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · Sapia.ai 35
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Sapia.ai 62
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · 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 -23.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.4 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 -23.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 70 | -42 | -8.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 52 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 62 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 56 (F) | -23 | -23.4 |
§ 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 | Qureos | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos 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