§ The result
4 points separate Alva Labs and Dayforce.
Alva Labs (Assessment) edges Dayforce (ATS-integrated) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 57 (F). Alva Labs leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Dayforce leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 58, Dayforce 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 57% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 4 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
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Dayforce under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | Dayforce |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1992 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Dayforce 42
2.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Dayforce 74
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Dayforce 63
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Dayforce 68
0.6 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Dayforce 47
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Dayforce 40
0.3 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Dayforce 70
0.2 weighted points to Dayforce
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Dayforce.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Dayforce | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 74 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 63 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 68 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 47 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 70 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 57 (F) | +4 | +4.0 |
§ 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 | Dayforce | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 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 | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dayforce last reviewed
- August 2, 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