HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Pymetrics · September 2026 Edition

5 categories · Named, not ranked

Pymetrics

20Judge labels

0First choices

10Negative labels

7 of 12Models named it

5Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Pymetrics was named 8 times in AI recruiting assistants and 4 other categories, where GoPerfect led with 19%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business62 of 70

under the label threshold

Mid-market80 of 84

under the label threshold

Enterprise48 of 53

under the label threshold

In ai recruiting assistants · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Pymetrics for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
AI recruiting assistants	Talent acquisition	0%	80 of 84	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by GoPerfect at 19%
Candidate assessment	Talent acquisition	0%	81 of 101	50%	2	under 10 labels · led by TestGorilla at 68%
Talent intelligence	Performance and talent management	0%	74 of 77	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by Pin at 17%
HR AI assistants	Onboarding and employee experience	0%	111 of 119	100%	1	under 10 labels · led by Workativ Assistant at 12%
Technical hiring assessments	Talent acquisition	0%	43 of 52	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by HackerRank at 28%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Pymetrics yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Pymetrics across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	2
Kimi K2	0	3	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative11 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative20 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

No positive label carried a quote.

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“Despite claims of being "bias-free," research suggests it replicated bias rather than erasing it” Kimi K2 · Talent intelligence · negative prompt · hard negative

“A 2024 Stanford study found significant racial bias when tested properly under EEOC guidelines” Kimi K2 · HR AI assistants · negative prompt · hard negative

“Many personality tests (pymetrics, ADEPT-15, behavioral "games") ask questions that map closely to disability traits” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Candidate assessment · negative prompt · soft negative

“Pymetrics (6.8/10) for transparency ... it signals weaker disclosure of how decisions get made.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Talent intelligence · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Pymetrics, over the 20 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Pymetrics was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

HireVue15 of 200Not in the top three

Workday9 of 200Not in the top three

Eightfold AI8 of 201Not in the top three

Codility5 of 200Not in the top three

TestGorilla5 of 200Not in the top three

HackerRank4 of 200Not in the top three

Criteria Corp3 of 201Not in the top three

Harver3 of 200Not in the top three

Manatal2 of 201Not in the top three

Zoho Recruit2 of 201Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Pymetrics. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 10 of the 20 answers that named Pymetrics and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

linkedin.com6

natlawreview.com6

bbc.com5

fortune.com4

reuters.com4

shrm.org4

aihr.com3

arxiv.org3

cio.com3

classaction.org3

Forty-one of the forty-one domain citations in answers naming Pymetrics came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

bbc.com/worklife/article/20240214-ai-recruiting-hiring-software-bias-discrimination5

reuters.com/legal/government/workday-must-face-california-lawsuit-over-ai-bias-job-screeni4

cio.com/article/4186548/judge-signals-ai-recruitment-tool-vendors-like-workday-may-not-esc3

fortune.com/2025/07/05/workday-amazon-alleged-ai-employment-bias-hiring-discrimination3

smarterarticles.co.uk/hiring-by-vibes-the-weak-science-behind-ai-personality-screening3

theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/19/ai-hiring-tools-discrimination3

aihr.com/blog/data-privacy-and-ethics-in-ai-for-hr2

arxiv.org/pdf/1910.06144v22

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Pymetrics

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Pymetrics; a claim can dispute any of them.

Pymetrics (now part of Harver) 1pymetrics 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Pymetrics's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Pymetrics, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at pymetrics.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.