§ The result
Alva Labs leads HiBob on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 15 points clear of HiBob under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 46 (F) — across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Alva Labs leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so HiBob is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Alva Labs leads is FRIA Support, Alva Labs 38 to HiBob 35. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alva Labs 58, HiBob 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 47% 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
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, HiBob 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 | HiBob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2015 |
§ 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 · HiBob 20
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · HiBob 55
4.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · HiBob 57
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · HiBob 47
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · HiBob 61
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · HiBob 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +14.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +14.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus HiBob.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | HiBob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 55 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 20 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 63 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 47 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 61 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 46 (F) | +15 | +14.7 |
§ 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 | HiBob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 29 | 7 | Sources 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; HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 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 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiBob 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