§ The result
Alva Labs leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Alva Labs scores 61 (D) to 30 (F) for Cognisess, a 31-point gap between two Assessment entries. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 6 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Cognisess leads none. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 78, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), is only 34% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs builds 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
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Cognisess 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 | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Cognisess 25
10.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Cognisess 20
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Cognisess 42
3.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Cognisess 20
2.7 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Cognisess 42
2.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Cognisess 32
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Cognisess 40
2.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +31.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 31.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +31 beside that +31.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 25 | +53 | +10.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 20 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 20 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 42 | +26 | +3.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 42 | +21 | +2.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 32 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 40 | +28 | +2.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 30 (F) | +31 | +31.2 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | — |
| 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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 | 3 | 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 | 21 | 5 | 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; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess 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