§ The result
1 point separates UKG and Wonderlic.
UKG (ATS-integrated) edges Wonderlic (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 44 to 43. UKG leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Wonderlic — UKG 30, Wonderlic 48, on an 18% weight — which is 80% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
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
UKG is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | UKG | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2020 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
UKG 30 · Wonderlic 48
3.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
UKG 56 · Wonderlic 38
2.7 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
UKG 35 · Wonderlic 25
1.5 weighted points to UKG
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
UKG 48 · Wonderlic 52
0.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
UKG 38 · Wonderlic 33
0.6 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 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 +0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is UKG minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | UKG | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 38 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 43 (F) | +1 | +0.8 |
§ 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 | UKG | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 0 | 2 | — | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- UKG 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