§ The result
4 points separate Alva Labs and Bryq.
Within the Assessment cohort, Alva Labs edges Bryq by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 57 (F). Alva Labs leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Bryq leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Bryq 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 4 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
Bryq
Bryq is a science-based talent-intelligence platform whose core product is a short, blind, chatbot-driven pre-hire assessment scoring candidates on cognitive ability, personality/behavioral traits, and job skills to produce a job-fit "match" score used for hiring and internal mobility.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Bryq 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 | Bryq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Bryq 54
4.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Bryq 70
2.2 weighted points to Bryq
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Bryq 54
1.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Bryq 62
0.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Bryq 55
0.4 weighted points to Bryq
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Bryq 40
0.3 weighted points to Bryq
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Bryq 66
0.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Bryq.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Bryq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 54 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 70 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 54 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 66 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 57 (F) | +4 | +4.1 |
§ 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 | Alva Labs | Bryq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 20 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Bryq has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Bryq 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: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 24 for Bryq, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Bryq last reviewed
- July 17, 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