§ The result
Alooba leads Arena Analytics by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Alooba, filed under Assessment, finishes on 38 and Arena Analytics, filed under Screening, on 32, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Alooba: Alooba is ahead on Human Oversight Design and Arena Analytics on Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Alooba 58, Arena Analytics 38) and Human Oversight Design at 12% (Alooba 55, Arena Analytics 38), the second being 27% of the weighted advantage Alooba holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Arena Analytics under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Arena Analytics |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Arena Analytics 38
2.0 weighted points to Alooba
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Arena Analytics 30
2.0 weighted points to Alooba
8% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Arena Analytics 38
1.6 weighted points to Alooba
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Arena Analytics 28
1.0 weighted points to Alooba
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Arena Analytics 25
0.5 weighted points to Arena Analytics
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Arena Analytics 25
0.4 weighted points to Alooba
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Arena Analytics 42
0.4 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +7.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Arena Analytics.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Arena Analytics | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 30 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 25 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 28 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 32 (F) | +6 | +7.0 |
§ 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 | Arena Analytics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 23 | 7 | Sources 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; Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and Arena Analytics sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Arena Analytics 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