§ The result
Checkr leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Checkr (Screening) opens a 16-point lead on Alooba (Assessment), 54 to 38. Checkr leads every one of the 7 criteria, Alooba none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Alooba 28 to Checkr 32. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 40, Checkr 70, 20% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Checkr builds 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
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Checkr under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Checkr 70
6.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Checkr 62
2.5 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Checkr 35
2.3 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Checkr 50
1.7 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Checkr 66
1.3 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Checkr 68
0.8 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Checkr 32
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
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 15.3 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 Checkr.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 70 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 66 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 50 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -0.8 |
| 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 | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | 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 | 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 | 24 | 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; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 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 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr 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