§ The result
HiPeople leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 23 points clear of Alooba inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 38 (F). Alooba leads none of the 7 criteria, and HiPeople is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alooba 22, HiPeople 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Alooba and HiPeople 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 | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | DE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · HiPeople 84
11.2 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · HiPeople 62
4.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · HiPeople 60
2.9 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · HiPeople 58
1.9 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · HiPeople 35
1.1 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · HiPeople 62
0.8 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · HiPeople 66
0.6 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -23 beside that -22.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 84 | -62 | -11.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 60 | -24 | -2.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 66 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 61 (D) | -23 | -22.9 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople 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