§ The result
Sova Assessment leads Alooba on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, Sova Assessment and Alooba come out 48 and 38 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Sova Assessment. Alooba is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Sova Assessment takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Post-Market Monitoring, Alooba 36 to Sova Assessment 40. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Alooba 22, Sova Assessment 38) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Alooba 40, Sova Assessment 55), the second being 31% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Alooba and Sova Assessment 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 | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | High |
| Headquarters | AU | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Sova Assessment 55
3.0 weighted points to Sova Assessment
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Sova Assessment 38
2.9 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Sova Assessment 40
1.8 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Sova Assessment 52
1.1 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Sova Assessment 40
0.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Sova Assessment 62
0.3 weighted points to Sova Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 48 (F) | -10 | -9.5 |
§ 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 | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 4 | 2 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 8 | 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; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment 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.
§ Where next