§ The result
iCIMS leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
iCIMS finishes 17 points clear of Alooba under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 38 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. iCIMS leads every one of the 7 criteria, Alooba none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Alooba 55 to iCIMS 58. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alooba 22, iCIMS 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds 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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, iCIMS under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2000 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · iCIMS 68
8.3 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · iCIMS 58
3.6 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · iCIMS 56
1.6 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · iCIMS 38
1.5 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · iCIMS 42
0.7 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · iCIMS 58
0.4 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · iCIMS 62
0.3 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -16.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus iCIMS.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 68 | -46 | -8.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 56 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 42 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 55 (F) | -17 | -16.4 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 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 | 4 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 21 | 3 | 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; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 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 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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