§ The result
Saville Assessment leads ZipRecruiter by 8 points.
Saville Assessment scores 48 and ZipRecruiter 40 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. ZipRecruiter takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for Saville Assessment, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Saville Assessment 42, ZipRecruiter 24) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 40% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 5 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
ZipRecruiter
ZipRecruiter is an online employment marketplace whose AI matching engine sends employers' job postings out, alerts matched job seekers and invites them to apply, and labels and ranks applicants (for example as 'Great Match') in the employer's candidate dashboard.
§ The record
Saville Assessment is filed under Assessment AI, ZipRecruiter under Candidate sourcing 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 | ZipRecruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2004 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · ZipRecruiter 24
3.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · ZipRecruiter 40
2.0 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · ZipRecruiter 27
1.9 weighted points to Saville Assessment
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Saville Assessment 60 · ZipRecruiter 54
0.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · ZipRecruiter 52
0.4 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · ZipRecruiter 40
0.2 weighted points to ZipRecruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 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 +7.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus ZipRecruiter.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | ZipRecruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 24 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 27 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 40 (F) | +8 | +7.9 |
§ 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 | ZipRecruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 6 | 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 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 | 28 | 5 | Sources 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; ZipRecruiter has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment and ZipRecruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for ZipRecruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- ZipRecruiter 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