§ The result
Fountain leads Alooba by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Fountain, filed under Screening, finishes on 44 and Alooba, filed under Assessment, on 38, 6 points apart. Alooba takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 6 for Fountain, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 40, Fountain 50, 20% weight), is only 33% of the weighted advantage Fountain builds 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
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Fountain 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 | Fountain |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Fountain 50
2.0 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Fountain 55
1.5 weighted points to Fountain
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Fountain 30
1.4 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Fountain 40
0.5 weighted points to Fountain
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Fountain 52
0.5 weighted points to Alooba
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Fountain 58
0.4 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Fountain 30
0.3 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Fountain.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Fountain | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| 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 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 44 (F) | -6 | -5.6 |
§ 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 | Fountain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 14 | 6 | 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; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fountain 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