§ The result
Tribepad leads Saville Assessment by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Tribepad, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 56 and Saville Assessment, filed under Assessment, on 48, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Tribepad: Tribepad is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Saville Assessment on FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Saville Assessment 42, Tribepad 78 — and at an 18% weight it carries 64% of the weighted advantage Tribepad holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Tribepad
Tribepad is a UK applicant tracking system whose built-in Sidekick AI assistant scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted skills and generates candidate summaries, SWOT analyses, job descriptions, salary suggestions and interview questions.
§ The record
Saville Assessment is filed under Assessment AI, Tribepad under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | Tribepad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2004 | 2008 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · Tribepad 78
6.5 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · Tribepad 54
1.9 weighted points to Tribepad
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · Tribepad 30
1.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · Tribepad 56
1.2 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · Tribepad 58
0.4 weighted points to Tribepad
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · Tribepad 58
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · Tribepad 56
0.1 weighted points to Tribepad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus Tribepad.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | Tribepad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 56 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 78 | -36 | -6.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 30 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 54 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 56 (F) | -8 | -8.4 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | Tribepad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 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 | 28 | 4 | 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; Tribepad has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment and Tribepad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Tribepad, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tribepad 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