§ The result
3 points separate RippleMatch and Wonderlic.
RippleMatch holds a 3-point edge over Wonderlic under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43, across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. RippleMatch leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — RippleMatch 50, Wonderlic 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 6 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
RippleMatch is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | RippleMatch | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
RippleMatch 50 · Wonderlic 38
1.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
RippleMatch 46 · Wonderlic 52
1.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
RippleMatch 53 · Wonderlic 48
0.9 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
RippleMatch 57 · Wonderlic 52
0.6 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
RippleMatch 37 · Wonderlic 33
0.5 weighted points to RippleMatch
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
RippleMatch 60 · Wonderlic 55
0.4 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
RippleMatch 27 · Wonderlic 25
0.3 weighted points to RippleMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is RippleMatch minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | RippleMatch | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 46 | 52 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 53 | 48 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 25 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 37 | 33 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 43 (F) | +3 | +3.3 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- RippleMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic last reviewed
- June 7, 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