§ The result
Alva Labs leads Classet by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Alva Labs, filed under Assessment, finishes on 61 (D) and Classet, filed under Screening, on 55 (F), 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Alva Labs: Alva Labs is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Classet on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Classet 46 — and at a 20% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 5 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
Classet
Classet's AI voice recruiter, Joy, phones hourly and frontline applicants within about a minute of applying, runs employer-scripted screening interviews with binary knockout questions, and sends recruiters recordings, transcripts, summaries and a qualified/unqualified outcome, either in Classet's lightweight ATS or in 100+ connected ATSs.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Classet under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Classet |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Classet 46
6.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Classet 76
3.2 weighted points to Classet
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Classet 57
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Classet 55
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Classet 33
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Classet 58
0.7 weighted points to Classet
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Classet 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 +6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Classet.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Classet | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 46 | +32 | +6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 76 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 55 (F) | +6 | +6.3 |
§ 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 | Classet | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 33 | 5 | 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; Classet has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Classet sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 38 for Classet, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Classet last reviewed
- September 25, 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