§ The result
Alva Labs leads Coderbyte on all 7 criteria.
The Assessment cohort pairing of Alva Labs and Coderbyte comes out 61 (D) to 42 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 19-point lead for Alva Labs. Of the 7 criteria Coderbyte wins none, and the narrowest lead Alva Labs holds is on Human Oversight Design, Alva Labs 63 to Coderbyte 60. The advantage Alva Labs holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 58, Coderbyte 20, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Alva Labs gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Coderbyte 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 | Coderbyte |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Coderbyte 20
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Coderbyte 44
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Coderbyte 56
1.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Coderbyte 40
1.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Coderbyte 58
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Coderbyte 33
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Coderbyte 60
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +18.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +18.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Coderbyte.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Coderbyte | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 44 | +34 | +6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 20 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 42 (F) | +19 | +18.8 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | Audit reportSources 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 26 | 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; Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Coderbyte sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Coderbyte 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