HomeCompareRecruiterflow vs Saville Assessment

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Recruiterflow vs Saville Assessment

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Saville Assessment leads Recruiterflow by 12 points.

Saville Assessment, filed under Assessment, comes out 12 points above Recruiterflow, filed under ATS-integrated: 48 against 36 under rubric v1.0. Saville Assessment leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Recruiterflow leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The advantage Saville Assessment holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Recruiterflow 18, Saville Assessment 42, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points Saville Assessment gains across the 6 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Recruiterflow is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Saville Assessment under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Saville Assessment is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordRecruiterflowSaville Assessment
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20172004

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 36% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Recruiterflow 18 · Saville Assessment 42

    4.3 weighted points to Saville Assessment

  2. 20% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Recruiterflow 33 · Saville Assessment 50

    3.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment

  3. 15% weight · 77% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Recruiterflow 44 · Saville Assessment 55

    1.6 weighted points to Saville Assessment

  4. 15% weight · 89% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Recruiterflow 30 · Saville Assessment 40

    1.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment

  5. 12% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Recruiterflow 33 · Saville Assessment 38

    0.6 weighted points to Saville Assessment

  6. 12% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Recruiterflow 58 · Saville Assessment 55

    0.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow

  7. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Recruiterflow 56 · Saville Assessment 60

    0.3 weighted points to Saville Assessment

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.4.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Recruiterflow minus Saville Assessment.

CategoryWeightRecruiterflowSaville AssessmentΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3350-17-3.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%1842-24-4.3
FRIA Support15%3040-10-1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%4455-11-1.6
Human Oversight Design12%5855+3+0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3338-5-0.6
Customer Documentation8%5660-4-0.3
Total100%36 (F)48 (F)-12-11.4

§ 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.

CriterionWeightRecruiterflowSaville Assessment
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain51Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%41Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%70Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain61Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%256Sources on the vendor's own domain346Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Recruiterflow last reviewed
September 25, 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.