§ The result
4 points separate Saville Assessment and UKG.
Saville Assessment holds a 4-point edge over UKG under rubric v1.0, 48 to 44, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Saville Assessment, with 1 level: Saville Assessment is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and UKG on Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Saville Assessment 42, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Saville Assessment is filed under Assessment AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2004 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · UKG 30
2.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · UKG 35
0.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · UKG 48
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · UKG 55
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · UKG 52
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 44 (F) | +4 | +3.9 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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