§ The result
Alva Labs leads impress.ai on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 23 points clear of impress.ai under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 38 (F) — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; impress.ai leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 78, impress.ai 35, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, impress.ai under Screening 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 | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | SE | SG |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · impress.ai 35
8.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · impress.ai 22
6.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · impress.ai 32
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · impress.ai 25
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · impress.ai 55
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · impress.ai 52
1.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · impress.ai 58
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +23.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +23 beside that +23.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 35 | +43 | +8.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 22 | +36 | +6.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 55 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 32 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 38 (F) | +23 | +23.5 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 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 | 18 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai 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