§ The result
Alva Labs leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 31 points between Alva Labs (Assessment) and Moonhub (Sourcing): 61 (D) for Alva Labs, 30 (F) for Moonhub. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Moonhub leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 78, Moonhub 30, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% 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
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Moonhub 30
9.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Moonhub 18
7.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Moonhub 40
4.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Moonhub 22
3.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Moonhub 38
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Moonhub 25
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Moonhub 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 +30.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 30.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +31 beside that +30.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 30 | +48 | +9.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 18 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 40 | +28 | +4.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 22 | +30 | +3.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 38 | +30 | +2.4 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 30 (F) | +31 | +30.8 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 6 | 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; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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