§ The result
HiringBranch leads Alooba by 14 points.
Both filed under Assessment, HiringBranch and Alooba come out 52 and 38 under rubric v1.0, 14 points in favour of HiringBranch. Alooba takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for HiringBranch, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alooba 22, HiringBranch 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds 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
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
§ The record
Alooba and HiringBranch 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 | HiringBranch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | CA |
| Founded | 2019 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · HiringBranch 60
6.8 weighted points to HiringBranch
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · HiringBranch 60
4.0 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · HiringBranch 55
1.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · HiringBranch 35
1.1 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · HiringBranch 40
0.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · HiringBranch 64
0.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · HiringBranch 52
0.4 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus HiringBranch.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | HiringBranch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 60 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 52 (F) | -14 | -14.0 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 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; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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