§ The result
SEEK leads Saville Assessment by 6 points.
SEEK scores 54 and Saville Assessment 48 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. SEEK leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Saville Assessment leads 2, including FRIA Support. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Saville Assessment 50, SEEK 70) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 54% of the weighted advantage SEEK holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
Vendor profile
SEEK
SEEK runs employment marketplaces in Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia (SEEK, Jobstreet and Jobsdb), and its seekAi employer tools label and rank applicants as 'high-fit' using a model trained on millions of past hirer shortlisting decisions, target job ads at predicted high-fit candidates, and run AI voice or text pre-screens, recommended shortlists and reference checks through a feature called Assist.
§ The record
Saville Assessment is filed under Assessment AI, SEEK 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 Saville Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Saville Assessment | SEEK |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AU |
| Founded | 2004 | 1997 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · SEEK 70
4.0 weighted points to SEEK
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · SEEK 50
1.4 weighted points to SEEK
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · SEEK 32
1.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · SEEK 62
0.8 weighted points to SEEK
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · SEEK 60
0.8 weighted points to SEEK
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · SEEK 40
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · SEEK 64
0.3 weighted points to SEEK
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus SEEK.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | SEEK | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 32 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 54 (F) | -6 | -5.8 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | SEEK | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 23 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; SEEK has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment and SEEK sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 30 for SEEK, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- SEEK 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