§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Versant by Pearson by 7 points.
Workday Recruiting AI scores 56 and Versant by Pearson 49 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Workday Recruiting AI: Workday Recruiting AI is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Versant by Pearson on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Versant by Pearson 42, Workday Recruiting AI 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Versant by Pearson
Versant by Pearson is a suite of AI-scored English proficiency tests (plus spoken Spanish, French, Arabic and Dutch) that automatically score candidates' spoken and written responses on Pearson's Global Scale of English within minutes, used by employers such as contact centres and BPOs to screen applicants and benchmark staff through the ScoreKeeper dashboard.
Vendor profile
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Versant by Pearson is filed under Assessment AI, Workday Recruiting AI under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Versant by Pearson is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Versant by Pearson | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1844 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Versant by Pearson 42 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
3.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Versant by Pearson 63 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
1.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Versant by Pearson 56 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
1.1 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Versant by Pearson 43 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
1.0 weighted points to Versant by Pearson
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Versant by Pearson 30 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.8 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Versant by Pearson 61 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.3 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Versant by Pearson 53 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.3 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Versant by Pearson minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Versant by Pearson | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 70 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 65 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 35 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 65 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 56 (F) | -7 | -6.1 |
§ 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 | Versant by Pearson | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Versant by Pearson has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Versant by Pearson sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Versant by Pearson, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Versant by Pearson last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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.