§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Textkernel by 5 points.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Textkernel 51 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Sapia.ai leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Textkernel leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Sapia.ai 70, Textkernel 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 5 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
Sapia.ai is filed under Assessment AI, Textkernel under Candidate sourcing 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 | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | NL |
| Founded | 2013 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · Textkernel 55
3.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · Textkernel 40
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · Textkernel 55
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · Textkernel 55
0.5 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · Textkernel 32
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · Textkernel 60
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 55 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 51 (F) | +5 | +5.4 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel 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