§ The result
Sapia.ai leads UKG on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 12 points above UKG under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 44 — with Sapia.ai filed under Assessment and UKG under ATS-integrated. Sapia.ai leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so UKG is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Sapia.ai leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Sapia.ai 62 to UKG 56. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Sapia.ai 70, UKG 48, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 6 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Sapia.ai is filed under Assessment AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · UKG 48
4.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · UKG 30
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · UKG 38
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · UKG 52
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · UKG 56
0.9 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sapia.ai 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +12.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +12.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 48 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 44 (F) | +12 | +12.5 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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