§ The result
Alva Labs leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 23 points clear of Alooba inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 38 (F). Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Alooba leads none. The advantage Alva Labs holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 40, Alva Labs 78, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points Alva Labs gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
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.
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
Alooba and Alva Labs are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Alva Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | SE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Alva Labs 78
7.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Alva Labs 58
6.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Alva Labs 68
3.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Alva Labs 52
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Alva Labs 38
1.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Alva Labs 63
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 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 -22.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -23 beside that -22.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Alva Labs.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Alva Labs | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 78 | -38 | -7.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 58 | -36 | -6.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 68 | -23 | -3.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 63 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 52 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 61 (D) | -23 | -22.7 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Alva Labs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 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 Alooba and Alva Labs sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 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