§ The result
Sense leads Saville Assessment by 10 points.
Sense sits 10 points above Saville Assessment under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 48 — with Sense filed under Screening and Saville Assessment under Assessment. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Sense: Sense is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Saville Assessment on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Saville Assessment 42, Sense 72) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Sense holds across the 6 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Saville Assessment is filed under Assessment AI, Sense 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 | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2004 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · Sense 72
5.4 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · Sense 60
2.0 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · Sense 52
1.7 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · Sense 64
1.1 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · Sense 58
0.4 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · Sense 38
0.3 weighted points to Saville Assessment
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · Sense 62
0.2 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 72 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 64 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 58 (F) | -10 | -10.5 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment and Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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