§ The result
3 points separate Alva Labs and Findem.
Alva Labs (Assessment) edges Findem (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 58 (F). Alva Labs leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Findem leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Findem — Alva Labs 58, Findem 83, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 1 criterion 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Findem under Candidate sourcing 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 | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Findem 83
4.5 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Findem 58
4.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Findem 57
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Findem 42
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Findem 58
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Findem 60
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 58 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 83 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 58 (F) | +3 | +3.5 |
§ 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 | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | 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 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 12 | 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Findem 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 Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem 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