§ The result
Saville Assessment leads Wonderlic by 5 points.
Saville Assessment scores 48 and Wonderlic 43 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Saville Assessment leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Saville Assessment 55, Wonderlic 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 41% 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Saville Assessment and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2004 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · Wonderlic 38
2.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · Wonderlic 25
2.3 weighted points to Saville Assessment
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · Wonderlic 48
1.1 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · Wonderlic 33
0.6 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · Wonderlic 55
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 25 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 43 (F) | +5 | +4.7 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 9 | 6 | Sources 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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