§ The result
Alva Labs leads iMocha by 5 points.
Alva Labs scores 61 (D) and iMocha 56 (F) under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Alva Labs leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while iMocha leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 58, iMocha 44 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 5 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
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
§ The record
Alva Labs and iMocha are both filed under Assessment 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 | iMocha |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | IN |
| Founded | 2017 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · iMocha 44
2.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · iMocha 68
2.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · iMocha 48
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · iMocha 66
0.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · iMocha 66
0.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · iMocha 64
0.1 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus iMocha.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | iMocha | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 68 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 66 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 64 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 66 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 56 (F) | +5 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | iMocha | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 21 | 5 | 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; iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and iMocha 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 iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iMocha 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