§ The result
Sova Assessment leads Recruiterflow by 12 points.
Sova Assessment sits 12 points above Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 36 — with Sova Assessment filed under Assessment and Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Sova Assessment: Sova Assessment is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Recruiterflow on Human Oversight Design. The advantage Sova Assessment holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Recruiterflow 33, Sova Assessment 55, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points Sova Assessment gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
Vendor profile
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Recruiterflow is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sova 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 Sova Assessment is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Recruiterflow | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruiterflow 33 · Sova Assessment 55
4.4 weighted points to Sova Assessment
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruiterflow 18 · Sova Assessment 38
3.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Recruiterflow 30 · Sova Assessment 40
1.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Recruiterflow 44 · Sova Assessment 52
1.2 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Recruiterflow 33 · Sova Assessment 40
0.8 weighted points to Sova Assessment
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Recruiterflow 56 · Sova Assessment 62
0.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Recruiterflow 58 · Sova Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.4 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 -11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruiterflow minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Recruiterflow | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 55 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 38 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 48 (F) | -12 | -11.7 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 8 | Audit 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; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruiterflow last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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