§ The result
4 points separate Alva Labs and Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
Alva Labs (Assessment) edges Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 57 (F). Alva Labs leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 — and at a 20% weight it carries 54% 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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
5.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
4.7 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
1.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
0.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 52 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 84 | -26 | -4.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 50 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 57 (F) | +4 | +4.6 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 12 | 4 | 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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