§ The result
Alva Labs leads Hogan Assessments on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs sits 14 points above Hogan Assessments under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) against 47 (F), with both filed under Assessment. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, Hogan Assessments none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Alva Labs 38 to Hogan Assessments 36. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Hogan Assessments 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Hogan Assessments are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Hogan Assessments |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1987 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Hogan Assessments 50
5.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Hogan Assessments 44
2.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Hogan Assessments 52
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Hogan Assessments 40
1.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Hogan Assessments 52
1.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Hogan Assessments 62
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Hogan Assessments 36
0.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Hogan Assessments.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Hogan Assessments | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 50 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 36 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 52 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 47 (F) | +14 | +14.1 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 20 | 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; Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 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 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 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