§ The result
Alva Labs leads micro1 on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs (Assessment) and micro1 (Screening) are 25 points apart under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) for Alva Labs against 36 (F) for micro1. micro1 leads none of the 7 criteria, and Alva Labs is ahead on 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 58, micro1 20, 18% weight), is only 27% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs builds 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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, micro1 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 | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · micro1 20
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · micro1 50
5.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · micro1 45
3.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · micro1 25
3.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · micro1 22
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · micro1 45
1.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · micro1 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 +25.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +25 beside that +25.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 50 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 20 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 22 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 45 | +23 | +3.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 25 | +27 | +3.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 45 | +23 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 36 (F) | +25 | +25.2 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | 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 | 7 | 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 | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 25 | 8 | Sources 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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