§ The result
Alva Labs leads ADP on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs sits 13 points above ADP under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 48 (F) — with Alva Labs filed under Assessment and ADP under ATS-integrated. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, ADP none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, ADP 45 to Alva Labs 52. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (ADP 53, Alva Labs 78, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
ADP
ADP is an enterprise human capital management and payroll provider whose recruiting suite uses AI to parse, rank, and match job applicants via its Candidate Relevancy tool, ADP Assist generative-AI assistant/job-description generator, and skills intelligence.
Vendor profile
Alva Labs
Alva Labs sells a science-backed hiring platform whose core is a suite of proprietary psychometric assessments - an adaptive logic (general mental ability) test, a Five-Factor Model personality test, and coding tests - wrapped in candidate management, CV screening, and structured-interview tooling.
§ The record
ADP is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Alva Labs 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 Alva Labs is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | ADP | Alva Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 1949 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
ADP 53 · Alva Labs 78
5.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
ADP 46 · Alva Labs 58
2.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
ADP 57 · Alva Labs 68
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
ADP 28 · Alva Labs 38
1.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
ADP 55 · Alva Labs 63
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
ADP 45 · Alva Labs 52
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
ADP 58 · Alva Labs 68
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is ADP minus Alva Labs.
| Category | Weight | ADP | Alva Labs | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 53 | 78 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 68 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 63 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 61 (D) | -13 | -12.9 |
§ 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 | ADP | Alva Labs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
ADP has 23 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 23 for ADP, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- ADP last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 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