§ The result
2 points separate Saville Assessment and RippleMatch.
Saville Assessment holds a 2-point edge over RippleMatch under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Saville Assessment leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while RippleMatch leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — RippleMatch takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, RippleMatch 53 to Saville Assessment 42, 89% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds — while the widest raw gap sits on FRIA Support, RippleMatch 27 to Saville Assessment 40.
Vendor profile
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
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
RippleMatch 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 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Saville Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | RippleMatch | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
RippleMatch 53 · Saville Assessment 42
2.0 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
RippleMatch 27 · Saville Assessment 40
1.9 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
RippleMatch 46 · Saville Assessment 50
0.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
RippleMatch 50 · Saville Assessment 55
0.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
RippleMatch 57 · Saville Assessment 55
0.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
RippleMatch 37 · Saville Assessment 38
0.1 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is RippleMatch minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | RippleMatch | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 46 | 50 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 53 | 42 | +11 | +2.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 40 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 37 | 38 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.4 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 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 RippleMatch and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 82 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- RippleMatch 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.
§ Where next