§ The result
Sova Assessment leads softgarden by 6 points.
Sova Assessment scores 48 and softgarden 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Sova Assessment leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while softgarden leads 3, including Post-Market Monitoring. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (softgarden 22, Sova Assessment 38, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment builds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
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
softgarden is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sova Assessment under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | softgarden | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2001 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
softgarden 22 · Sova Assessment 38
2.9 weighted points to Sova Assessment
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
softgarden 42 · Sova Assessment 55
2.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
softgarden 30 · Sova Assessment 40
1.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
softgarden 44 · Sova Assessment 40
0.5 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
softgarden 58 · Sova Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
softgarden 58 · Sova Assessment 62
0.3 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
softgarden 54 · Sova Assessment 52
0.3 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.2 — 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 -6 beside that -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is softgarden minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | softgarden | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | softgarden | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 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