§ The result
Alva Labs leads HireLogic on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 27 points between Alva Labs (Assessment) and HireLogic (Video interview): 61 (D) for Alva Labs, 34 (F) for HireLogic. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; HireLogic leads none. The advantage Alva Labs holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 58, HireLogic 15, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 29% of the weighted points Alva Labs gains across the 7 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
HireLogic
HireLogic joins phone, video and in-person interviews to transcribe them and generate AI notes, job-description coverage, candidate insights and flags for potentially discriminatory interviewer questions, and also offers an asynchronous AI interview agent that scores candidates on relevance and depth of knowledge.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, HireLogic under Video interview 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 | HireLogic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · HireLogic 15
7.7 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · HireLogic 42
7.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · HireLogic 45
3.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · HireLogic 28
2.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · HireLogic 25
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · HireLogic 45
1.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · HireLogic 48
1.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +26.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +27 beside that +26.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus HireLogic.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | HireLogic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 42 | +36 | +7.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 15 | +43 | +7.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 45 | +23 | +3.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +2.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 45 | +23 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 34 (F) | +27 | +26.9 |
§ 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 | HireLogic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 23 | 6 | 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; HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 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 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HireLogic 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