§ The result
Alva Labs leads Glider AI by 9 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Alva Labs on 61 (D) and Glider AI on 52 (F), 9 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Alva Labs: Alva Labs is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Glider AI on Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Alva Labs 78, Glider AI 52) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 6 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
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Glider AI 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 | Glider AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Glider AI 52
5.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Glider AI 54
2.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Glider AI 68
1.8 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Glider AI 40
1.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Glider AI 55
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Glider AI 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Glider AI 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Glider AI.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Glider AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 52 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 54 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 52 (F) | +9 | +9.0 |
§ 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 | Glider AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 27 | 6 | 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; Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Glider AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Glider AI 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