§ The result
1 point separates Canditech and Alooba.
Canditech holds a 1-point edge over Alooba under rubric v1.0, 39 to 38, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Alooba and Canditech each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Canditech holds (headed by Data Governance Disclosure) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, is both the widest raw gap (Alooba 45, Canditech 52) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 56% of the weighted advantage Canditech holds across the 3 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
Canditech
Canditech is a skills-assessment and job-simulation platform that screens candidates with work-sample tests, technical and soft-skill assessments, and one-way video interviews, using AI agents to auto-score open-text and video responses.
§ The record
Alooba and Canditech 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 | Canditech |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | IL |
| Founded | 2019 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Canditech 52
1.1 weighted points to Canditech
20% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Canditech 37
0.6 weighted points to Alooba
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Canditech 25
0.5 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Canditech 32
0.5 weighted points to Alooba
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Canditech 30
0.3 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Canditech 53
0.2 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.2 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 Alooba minus Canditech.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Canditech | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 37 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 25 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 53 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 32 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 39 (F) | -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 | Alooba | Canditech | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 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