§ The result
Bullhorn leads Alooba by 16 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Bullhorn (ATS-integrated) opens a 16-point lead on Alooba (Assessment), 54 to 38. Alooba takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Bullhorn, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alooba 22, Bullhorn 58 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Bullhorn 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
Bullhorn
Bullhorn is a cloud-based applicant tracking system and CRM for staffing and recruiting agencies, with AI features (Bullhorn Copilot/Amplify, automation, and Textkernel-powered search and match) that source, screen, and rank candidates against jobs.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Bullhorn under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alooba is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Bullhorn |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | High |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 1999 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Bullhorn 58
6.5 weighted points to Bullhorn
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Bullhorn 62
4.4 weighted points to Bullhorn
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Bullhorn 60
2.3 weighted points to Bullhorn
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Bullhorn 38
1.5 weighted points to Bullhorn
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Bullhorn 60
0.6 weighted points to Bullhorn
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Bullhorn 60
0.2 weighted points to Bullhorn
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Bullhorn 35
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -15.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Bullhorn.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Bullhorn | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 58 | -36 | -6.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 60 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 54 (F) | -16 | -15.3 |
§ 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 | Bullhorn | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 15 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Bullhorn has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Bullhorn, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Bullhorn last reviewed
- June 7, 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