Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Alva Labs vs Greenhouse
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.
Concerning
Assessment
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
The result
Greenhouse leads Alva Labs by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Greenhouse, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 67 and Alva Labs, filed under Assessment, on 61, 6 points apart. Alva Labs takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 4 for Greenhouse, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 58, Greenhouse 86 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Alva Labs2
- Greenhouse4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency58 vs 86
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Greenhouse under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Alva Labs is in scope of
| Record | Alva Labs | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight66% of the movement so far
Alva Labs58Greenhouse865.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight75% of the movement so far
Alva Labs52Greenhouse580.7 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight83% of the movement so far
Alva Labs38Greenhouse420.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight91% of the movement so far
Alva Labs68Greenhouse640.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight96% of the movement so far
Alva Labs63Greenhouse660.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Alva Labs68Greenhouse640.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Greenhouse, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Greenhouse | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 78 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 86 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 64 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 66 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 64 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61D | 67D | -6 | -5.8 |
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 | Greenhouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 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 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 16 | 1 | 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; Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Greenhouse 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 Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Greenhouse 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.