§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Wonderlic on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 13 points above Wonderlic under rubric v1.0, 56 against 43, with both filed under Assessment. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Wonderlic none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Sapia.ai 52 to Wonderlic 48. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Sapia.ai 62, Wonderlic 38) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Sapia.ai 70, Wonderlic 52), the second being 27% 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
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
Sapia.ai and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · Wonderlic 52
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · Wonderlic 38
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · Wonderlic 33
2.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · Wonderlic 25
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · Wonderlic 52
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · Wonderlic 48
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sapia.ai 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 52 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 33 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 43 (F) | +13 | +13.2 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 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 | 9 | 6 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 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 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai 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.
§ Where next