§ The result
4 points separate Sova Assessment and UKG.
Sova Assessment (Assessment) edges UKG (ATS-integrated) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 44. Sova Assessment leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Sova Assessment 38, UKG 30, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
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
Sova 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 Sova Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Sova Assessment | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sova Assessment 38 · UKG 30
1.4 weighted points to Sova Assessment
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sova Assessment 55 · UKG 48
1.4 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sova Assessment 40 · UKG 35
0.8 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sova Assessment 52 · UKG 56
0.6 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sova Assessment 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sova Assessment 55 · UKG 52
0.4 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sova Assessment 40 · UKG 38
0.2 weighted points to Sova Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 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 +4.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sova Assessment minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Sova Assessment | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 44 (F) | +4 | +4.2 |
§ 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 | Sova Assessment | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 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 Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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