§ The result
Crosschq leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Crosschq, filed under Screening, finishes on 47 and Alooba, filed under Assessment, on 38, 9 points apart. Crosschq takes all 7 criteria from Alooba without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is FRIA Support, Alooba 28 to Crosschq 30. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 22, Crosschq 38, 18% weight), is only 33% of the weighted advantage Crosschq 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
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Crosschq 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 | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Crosschq 38
2.9 weighted points to Crosschq
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Crosschq 50
2.0 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Crosschq 58
1.9 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Crosschq 62
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Crosschq 40
0.5 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Crosschq 62
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Crosschq 30
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 47 (F) | -9 | -8.8 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources 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 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 | 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 | 38 | 5 | 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; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 77 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq 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