§ The result
Clevry leads Alooba by 7 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Clevry on 45 and Alooba on 38, 7 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Clevry: Clevry is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Alooba on Post-Market Monitoring. The advantage Clevry holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 22, Clevry 38, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 38% of the weighted points Clevry gains across the 6 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
Clevry
Clevry is a UK psychometric assessment platform offering norm-referenced personality questionnaires, cognitive ability tests and situational judgement tests, plus recorded one-way video interviews, an interview builder, a skills-first ATS and an AI tool that maps job ads onto its personality scale library.
§ The record
Alooba and Clevry are both filed under Assessment 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 | Clevry |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1991 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Clevry 38
2.9 weighted points to Clevry
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Clevry 52
2.4 weighted points to Clevry
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Clevry 55
1.5 weighted points to Clevry
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Clevry 30
0.7 weighted points to Alooba
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Clevry 58
0.4 weighted points to Clevry
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Clevry 30
0.3 weighted points to Clevry
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Clevry 60
0.2 weighted points to Clevry
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Clevry.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Clevry | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 30 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 45 (F) | -7 | -6.9 |
§ 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 | Clevry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 39 | 5 | 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; Clevry has 44 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 39 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and Clevry sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 78 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 44 for Clevry, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Clevry 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