§ The result
2 points separate Saville Assessment and TalentLens.
Within the Assessment cohort, Saville Assessment edges TalentLens by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46. TalentLens takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 4 for Saville Assessment, whose share includes FRIA Support. One criterion, FRIA Support, is both the widest raw gap (Saville Assessment 40, TalentLens 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 4 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
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
Saville Assessment and TalentLens 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 | Saville Assessment | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2004 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 35% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · TalentLens 30
1.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · TalentLens 50
0.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · TalentLens 32
0.7 weighted points to Saville Assessment
18% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · TalentLens 45
0.5 weighted points to TalentLens
20% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · TalentLens 52
0.4 weighted points to TalentLens
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · TalentLens 57
0.2 weighted points to TalentLens
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · TalentLens 58
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 30 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 46 (F) | +2 | +1.9 |
§ 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 | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 5 | 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; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment and TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens 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