§ The result
4 points separate Test Partnership and RippleMatch.
Test Partnership holds a 4-point edge over RippleMatch under rubric v1.0, 50 to 46, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Test Partnership: Test Partnership is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and RippleMatch on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — RippleMatch 46, Test Partnership 57 — and at a 20% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
RippleMatch is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Test Partnership 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 Test Partnership is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | RippleMatch | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
RippleMatch 46 · Test Partnership 57
2.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
RippleMatch 27 · Test Partnership 36
1.3 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
RippleMatch 50 · Test Partnership 57
1.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
RippleMatch 53 · Test Partnership 48
0.9 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
RippleMatch 37 · Test Partnership 33
0.5 weighted points to RippleMatch
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
RippleMatch 60 · Test Partnership 62
0.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
RippleMatch 57 · Test Partnership 58
0.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is RippleMatch minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | RippleMatch | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 46 | 57 | -11 | -2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 53 | 48 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 36 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 37 | 33 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 50 (F) | -4 | -3.5 |
§ 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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch and Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- RippleMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership 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