§ The result
Sense leads Sova Assessment by 10 points.
Sense sits 10 points above Sova Assessment under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 48 — with Sense filed under Screening and Sova Assessment under Assessment. Sense leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Sova Assessment leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Sense 72, Sova Assessment 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Sense holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
Vendor profile
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Sense is filed under Screening AI, Sova Assessment under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Sova Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Sense | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sense 72 · Sova Assessment 38
6.1 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sense 52 · Sova Assessment 40
1.4 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sense 64 · Sova Assessment 55
1.1 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sense 60 · Sova Assessment 55
1.0 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sense 58 · Sova Assessment 52
0.9 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sense 38 · Sova Assessment 40
0.3 weighted points to Sova Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sense minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Sense | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 72 | 38 | +34 | +6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 48 (F) | +10 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | Sense | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sense and Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sense last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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