§ The result
Textkernel leads Wonderlic on all 7 criteria.
Textkernel scores 51 and Wonderlic 43 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Textkernel is ahead of Wonderlic on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Article 11 Technical Documentation at Textkernel 55 to Wonderlic 52. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Textkernel 55, Wonderlic 38, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Textkernel holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
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
Textkernel is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Wonderlic under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Textkernel | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2001 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Textkernel 55 · Wonderlic 38
2.5 weighted points to Textkernel
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Textkernel 55 · Wonderlic 48
1.3 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Textkernel 32 · Wonderlic 25
1.1 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Textkernel 60 · Wonderlic 52
1.0 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Textkernel 40 · Wonderlic 33
0.8 weighted points to Textkernel
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Textkernel 55 · Wonderlic 52
0.6 weighted points to Textkernel
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Textkernel 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to Textkernel
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Textkernel minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Textkernel | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 51 (F) | 43 (F) | +8 | +7.8 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Textkernel last reviewed
- June 7, 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