§ The result
Saville Assessment leads Radancy by 7 points.
Saville Assessment scores 48 and Radancy 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Saville Assessment leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Radancy 20, Saville Assessment 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 52% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
Vendor profile
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Saville Assessment under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Radancy | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2006 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Saville Assessment 42
4.0 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Saville Assessment 40
1.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Saville Assessment 50
1.6 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Saville Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Saville Assessment 55
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Saville Assessment 38
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 38 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 48 (F) | -7 | -6.9 |
§ 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 | Radancy | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment 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.
§ Where next