§ The result
Sapia.ai leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Sapia.ai (Assessment) and XOR (Screening): 56 for Sapia.ai, 30 for XOR. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; XOR leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Sapia.ai 70, XOR 20, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Sapia.ai is filed under Assessment AI, XOR under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · XOR 20
10.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · XOR 18
6.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · XOR 42
3.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · XOR 40
2.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · XOR 33
2.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · XOR 25
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sapia.ai 62 · XOR 48
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +26.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +26 beside that +26.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 20 | +50 | +10.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 18 | +34 | +6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +2.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 33 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 30 (F) | +26 | +26.4 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 11 | 7 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR last reviewed
- July 17, 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