Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Alooba vs impress.ai
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
Alooba and impress.ai tie at 38.
Alooba, filed under Assessment, and impress.ai, filed under Screening, tie at 38 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Alooba leads 4 of the 7 criteria and impress.ai 1, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alooba 45, impress.ai 55 — and at a 15% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage impress.ai holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Alooba4
- impress.ai1
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Data Governance Disclosure45 vs 55
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Data Governance Disclosure15% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, impress.ai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Alooba | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | High |
| Headquarters | AU | SG |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight40% of the movement so far
Alooba45impress.ai551.5 weighted points to impress.ai
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight66% of the movement so far
Alooba40impress.ai351.0 weighted points to Alooba
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight79% of the movement so far
Alooba36impress.ai320.5 weighted points to Alooba
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight91% of the movement so far
Alooba28impress.ai250.4 weighted points to Alooba
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Alooba55impress.ai520.4 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus impress.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 22 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 32 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 38F | 38F | - | +0.8 |
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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai 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.