Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Adaface vs Alooba
Adaface
Adaface runs chatbot-led 'conversational' skills tests for 500+ roles that score candidates automatically as pass, borderline pass or fail on benchmarked scorecards, backed by webcam, screen and IP proctoring and an AI résumé parser.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
1 point separates Adaface and Alooba.
Adaface holds a 1-point edge over Alooba under rubric v1.0, 39 to 38, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Alooba takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 3 for Adaface, whose share includes Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. One criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, is both the widest raw gap (Adaface 52, Alooba 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 66% of the weighted advantage Adaface holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Adaface3
- Alooba2
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Data Governance Disclosure52 vs 45
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Data Governance Disclosure15% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Adaface and Alooba are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Adaface | Alooba |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Low |
| Headquarters | SG | AU |
| Founded | 2018 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight41% of the movement so far
Adaface52Alooba451.1 weighted points to Adaface
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight64% of the movement so far
Adaface50Alooba550.6 weighted points to Alooba
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight79% of the movement so far
Adaface38Alooba400.4 weighted points to Alooba
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight91% of the movement so far
Adaface30Alooba280.3 weighted points to Adaface
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Adaface38Alooba360.2 weighted points to Adaface
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.6 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 +0.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Adaface minus Alooba, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Adaface | Alooba | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 22 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 36 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 39F | 38F | +1 | +0.6 |
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 | Adaface | Alooba | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Adaface has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Adaface, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Adaface last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 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
Scored against