§ The result
Alva Labs leads CoderPad on all 7 criteria.
The Assessment cohort pairing of Alva Labs and CoderPad comes out 61 (D) to 42 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 19-point lead for Alva Labs. Of the 7 criteria CoderPad wins none, and the narrowest lead Alva Labs holds is on Human Oversight Design, Alva Labs 63 to CoderPad 57. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 58, CoderPad 20, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 35% 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
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
§ The record
Alva Labs and CoderPad 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 | CoderPad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · CoderPad 20
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · CoderPad 45
6.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · CoderPad 54
2.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · CoderPad 28
1.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · CoderPad 44
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · CoderPad 58
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · CoderPad 57
0.7 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.5 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 +19.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus CoderPad.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | CoderPad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 45 | +33 | +6.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 20 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 54 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 57 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 42 (F) | +19 | +19.5 |
§ 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 | CoderPad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 32 | 6 | 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; CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and CoderPad 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 CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- CoderPad 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