§ The result
Wonderlic takes the total, Tengai takes more of the criteria.
Wonderlic (Assessment) edges Tengai (Screening) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 43 to 42. Tengai leads more of the criteria than Wonderlic — 3 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Wonderlic leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Wonderlic. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Tengai 33, Wonderlic 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 66% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
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
Tengai is filed under Screening AI, Wonderlic under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Tengai | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Tengai 33 · Wonderlic 48
2.7 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Tengai 50 · Wonderlic 38
1.8 weighted points to Tengai
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Tengai 45 · Wonderlic 52
1.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Tengai 58 · Wonderlic 52
0.7 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Tengai 28 · Wonderlic 25
0.4 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Tengai minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Tengai | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 48 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 33 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 43 (F) | -1 | -1.1 |
§ 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 | Tengai | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 37 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 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 Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Tengai 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