§ The result
Sapia.ai leads softgarden on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai, filed under Assessment, comes out 14 points above softgarden, filed under ATS-integrated: 56 against 42 under rubric v1.0. Of the 7 criteria softgarden wins none, and the narrowest lead Sapia.ai holds is on Human Oversight Design, Sapia.ai 62 to softgarden 58. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Sapia.ai 52, softgarden 22) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Sapia.ai 70, softgarden 42), the second being 39% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Sapia.ai is filed under Assessment AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Sapia.ai | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | DE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · softgarden 42
5.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · softgarden 22
5.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · softgarden 54
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · softgarden 44
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sapia.ai 62 · softgarden 58
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 42 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 22 | +30 | +5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +14.5 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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