AI vendor transparency index - Center for Psychology

Seventeen vendors of AI-scored hiring and assessment tools, assessed against eight criteria covering published documentation on the validity and fairness of their scores. The assessment does not cover the product, the model or the underlying science.

Documented

cells of 136 where the information is public, specific and sourced.

Partial

information is published but general, undated, unquantified, or reachable only on providing contact details.

Absent

no public source was found by the search protocol on 2026-09-22.

Rubric version 1. Search protocol applied and all sources accessed 2026-09-22.

Overview of evaluation scores (alphabetical listing)

The presented scores are fully based on published facts. See the methods note and the rubric for full details.

Vendor	Proportion of criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8
Aon Assessment Solutions Hamburg, Germany, within Aon plc	D 0% P 37.5% A 62.5%	A	A	A	P	P	P	A	A
Arctic Shores Manchester, United Kingdom	D 0% P 37.5% A 62.5%	A	A	P	P	A	A	P	A
Cammio The Hague, Netherlands	D 0% P 0% A 100%	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	A
Canditech Tel Aviv, Israel	D 12.5% P 12.5% A 75%	A	A	A	A	P	D	A	A
Criteria Corp Los Angeles, United States	D 25% P 37.5% A 37.5%	D	P	A	P	A	P	A	D
Equalture Rotterdam, Netherlands	D 0% P 37.5% A 62.5%	A	A	P	P	A	A	P	A
Harver Rotterdam, Netherlands and Atlanta, United States	D 25% P 37.5% A 37.5%	P	A	D	P	A	P	D	A
HiPeople Berlin, Germany	D 0% P 37.5% A 62.5%	P	A	A	P	A	A	A	P
HireVue South Jordan, United States	D 62.5% P 37.5% A 0%	D	D	D	D	P	P	D	P
Retorio Munich, Germany	D 0% P 50% A 50%	P	A	P	P	A	P	A	A
SHL Thames Ditton, United Kingdom	D 12.5% P 37.5% A 50%	D	A	P	A	A	P	P	A
Sapia.ai Melbourne, Australia, with a London office	D 25% P 37.5% A 37.5%	P	A	P	D	A	P	D	A
Sova Assessment London, United Kingdom	D 0% P 62.5% A 37.5%	A	P	P	P	A	A	P	P
Talogy London, United Kingdom	D 0% P 50% A 50%	P	A	P	P	A	P	A	A
TestGorilla Amsterdam, Netherlands	D 37.5% P 62.5% A 0%	D	P	P	P	P	D	P	D
Vervoe Melbourne, Australia, with a New York office	D 25% P 25% A 50%	A	A	P	P	A	D	D	A
Willo Glasgow, United Kingdom	D 0% P 25% A 75%	A	A	A	P	A	P	A	A

D documented, P partial, A absent. The proportion column gives each vendor share of the eight criteria at each level. Select a vendor for the quoted source behind each cell.

The eight criteria

C1. Technical manual or validity report publicly available without a sales conversation: 4 documented, 5 partial, 8 absent.
C2. Validity coefficients reported with sample size and uncertainty: 1 documented, 3 partial, 13 absent.
C3. Adverse impact reported by named subgroup: 2 documented, 9 partial, 6 absent.
C4. Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome: 2 documented, 12 partial, 3 absent.
C5. Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes: 0 documented, 4 partial, 13 absent.
C6. Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score: 3 documented, 9 partial, 5 absent.
C7. Independent review named and the reviewer identified: 4 documented, 5 partial, 8 absent.
C8. Reliability reported, and reported by group: 2 documented, 3 partial, 12 absent.

Method and corrections

The rubric and the search protocol were fixed and published before any entry was scored. Read the rubric for the criteria and their scoring definitions, the methods note for the search protocol, the limitations and the corrections route, and the inclusion criteria for which companies are assessed and the decision on every candidate considered.