§ The result
Alva Labs leads Cornerstone OnDemand on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Alva Labs scores 61 (D) and Cornerstone OnDemand 56 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Alva Labs leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Cornerstone OnDemand is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Alva Labs leads is FRIA Support, Alva Labs 38 to Cornerstone OnDemand 35. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Alva Labs 68, Cornerstone OnDemand 60) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Alva Labs 78, Cornerstone OnDemand 72), the second being 23% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 6 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
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Cornerstone OnDemand under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Cornerstone OnDemand |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1999 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Cornerstone OnDemand 72
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Cornerstone OnDemand 55
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Cornerstone OnDemand 45
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Cornerstone OnDemand 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Cornerstone OnDemand.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Cornerstone OnDemand | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 72 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 56 (F) | +5 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 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; Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cornerstone OnDemand last reviewed
- June 7, 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