§ The result
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting leads Wonderlic by 10 points.
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting sits 10 points above Wonderlic under rubric v1.0 — 53 against 43 — with SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting filed under ATS-integrated and Wonderlic under Assessment. SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Wonderlic leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 60, Wonderlic 38) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 70, Wonderlic 52), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting is the recruiting module of SAP's cloud HCM suite, using AI (career-site skills matching, job-description generation, resume skills extraction and stack-ranking of applicants) delivered under SAP Business AI and the Joule assistant.
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
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting is filed under ATS-integrated 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 | SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 1972 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 70 · Wonderlic 52
3.6 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 60 · Wonderlic 38
3.3 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 35 · Wonderlic 25
1.5 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
18% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 40 · Wonderlic 48
1.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 62 · Wonderlic 52
1.2 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 40 · Wonderlic 33
0.8 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.6 — 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 +10 beside that +9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 52 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 38 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 43 (F) | +10 | +9.6 |
§ 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 | SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 5 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 SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting, across 3 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting last reviewed
- June 7, 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.