§ The result
Test Partnership leads UKG by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Test Partnership, filed under Assessment, finishes on 50 and UKG, filed under ATS-integrated, on 44, 6 points apart. UKG takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Test Partnership, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Test Partnership 48, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
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
Test Partnership 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 Test Partnership is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Test Partnership | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Test Partnership 48 · UKG 30
3.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Test Partnership 57 · UKG 48
1.8 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Test Partnership 58 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Test Partnership 33 · UKG 38
0.6 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Test Partnership 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Test Partnership 36 · UKG 35
0.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Test Partnership 57 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 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 +6.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Test Partnership minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Test Partnership | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 38 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 50 (F) | 44 (F) | +6 | +6.0 |
§ 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 | Test Partnership | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | 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 | Sources 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 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 Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Test Partnership last reviewed
- September 25, 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