§ The result
Alva Labs leads Dover on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 16 points clear of Dover under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 45 (F) — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, Dover none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Alva Labs 63 to Dover 58. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Dover 34 — and at a 20% weight it carries 55% 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
Dover
Dover is an AI recruiting platform for startups offering a free applicant tracking system, candidate sourcing via a LinkedIn/Copilot browser extension, OpenAI/Anthropic-powered 0-100 applicant scoring, and a fractional-recruiter marketplace.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Dover under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Dover |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Dover 34
8.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Dover 50
2.7 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Dover 30
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Dover 52
1.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Dover 44
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Dover 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Dover 58
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +16.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Dover.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Dover | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 34 | +44 | +8.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 50 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 45 (F) | +16 | +16.0 |
§ 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 | Dover | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 13 | 4 | 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; Dover has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Dover sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Dover, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dover last reviewed
- July 17, 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