§ The result
2 points separate Alooba and Recruiterflow.
Alooba (Assessment) edges Recruiterflow (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 38 to 36. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Alooba: Alooba is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Recruiterflow on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Alooba 40, Recruiterflow 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Alooba holds across the 5 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alooba is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Recruiterflow 33
1.4 weighted points to Alooba
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Recruiterflow 18
0.7 weighted points to Alooba
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Recruiterflow 58
0.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Recruiterflow 33
0.4 weighted points to Alooba
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Recruiterflow 30
0.3 weighted points to Recruiterflow
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Recruiterflow 56
0.2 weighted points to Alooba
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Recruiterflow 44
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 18 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 44 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 33 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 36 (F) | +2 | +2.1 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 6 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow last reviewed
- September 25, 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