§ The result
Alva Labs leads Cangrade on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 16 points clear of Cangrade inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 45 (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; Cangrade leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 78, Cangrade 52, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% 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
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Cangrade 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 | Cangrade |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Cangrade 52
5.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Cangrade 35
4.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Cangrade 32
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Cangrade 54
2.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Cangrade 30
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Cangrade 56
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Cangrade 62
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +16.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Cangrade.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Cangrade | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 52 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 35 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 54 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 56 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 32 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 45 (F) | +16 | +16.4 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 3 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 20 | 10 | Sources 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; Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cangrade 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