§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Alooba by 19 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) finishes 19 points clear of Alooba under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 38 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Alooba leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alooba 22, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 60% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
11.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
2.3 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
1.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
1.1 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
0.6 weighted points to Alooba
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -19 beside that -18.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 84 | -62 | -11.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 56 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 55 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 57 (F) | -19 | -18.1 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 4 | 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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