§ The result
Alva Labs leads Arctic Shores on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 15 points clear of Arctic Shores inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 46 (F). Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Arctic Shores leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 78, Arctic Shores 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Alva Labs
Alva Labs sells a science-backed hiring platform whose core is a suite of proprietary psychometric assessments - an adaptive logic (general mental ability) test, a Five-Factor Model personality test, and coding tests - wrapped in candidate management, CV screening, and structured-interview tooling.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Arctic Shores are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Arctic Shores |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Arctic Shores 50
5.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Arctic Shores 35
4.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Arctic Shores 30
2.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Arctic Shores 57
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Arctic Shores 56
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Arctic Shores 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Arctic Shores 64
0.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +15.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Arctic Shores.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Arctic Shores | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 50 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 35 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 56 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 64 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 46 (F) | +15 | +15.6 |
§ 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 | Alva Labs | Arctic Shores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Arctic Shores 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