Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Alva Labs vs Checkr
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.
Concerning
Assessment
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
Alva Labs leads Checkr by 7 points.
Alva Labs scores 61 (D) and Checkr 54 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Alva Labs leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Checkr leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alva Labs 58, Checkr 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 53% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Alva Labs5
- Checkr1
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency58 vs 35
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Checkr under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Alva Labs is in scope of
| Record | Alva Labs | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight51% of the movement so far
Alva Labs58Checkr354.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight71% of the movement so far
Alva Labs78Checkr701.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight82% of the movement so far
Alva Labs38Checkr320.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight93% of the movement so far
Alva Labs68Checkr620.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Alva Labs63Checkr660.4 weighted points to Checkr
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Alva Labs52Checkr500.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Checkr, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 70 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 35 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 66 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 68 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 61D | 54F | +7 | +7.4 |
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 | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources 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; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 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 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr 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.