Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Alva Labs vs HiPeople
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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
Concerning
Assessment
The result
Alva Labs and HiPeople tie at 61.
Alva Labs and HiPeople tie at 61 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Alva Labs leads 5 of the 7 criteria and HiPeople 2, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alva Labs 58, HiPeople 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 83% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Alva Labs5
- HiPeople2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency58 vs 84
- 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 and HiPeople are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Alva Labs | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | DE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight42% of the movement so far
Alva Labs58HiPeople844.7 weighted points to HiPeople
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight71% of the movement so far
Alva Labs78HiPeople623.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight85% of the movement so far
Alva Labs68HiPeople581.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight93% of the movement so far
Alva Labs52HiPeople601.0 weighted points to HiPeople
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight97% of the movement so far
Alva Labs38HiPeople350.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight99% of the movement so far
Alva Labs68HiPeople660.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Alva Labs63HiPeople620.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus HiPeople, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 62 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 84 | -26 | -4.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 66 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61D | 61D | - | -0.2 |
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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 5 | 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 | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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
Scored against