§ The result
Sapia.ai leads TestDome on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Sapia.ai opens a 19-point lead on TestDome, 56 to 37, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. TestDome leads none of the 7 criteria, and Sapia.ai is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Sapia.ai 52, TestDome 15, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 35% 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
TestDome
TestDome sells pay-per-candidate online skills tests for coding, Excel and more than 100 other skills. The tests are scored automatically, and open-ended answers can be scored by AI. AI analysis of webcam and screen proctoring recordings flags possible cheating, and a live code-interview tool is included.
§ The record
Sapia.ai and TestDome are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Sapia.ai | TestDome |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | AU | HR |
| Founded | 2013 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · TestDome 15
6.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · TestDome 40
6.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · TestDome 30
2.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · TestDome 50
1.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · TestDome 52
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · TestDome 28
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sapia.ai 62 · TestDome 60
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +19.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus TestDome.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | TestDome | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 40 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 15 | +37 | +6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 30 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 37 (F) | +19 | +19.3 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | TestDome | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 27 | 5 | Sources 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; TestDome has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for TestDome, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TestDome 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