§ The result
Alva Labs leads Recruiterflow on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs (Assessment) and Recruiterflow (ATS-integrated) are 25 points apart under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) for Alva Labs against 36 (F) for Recruiterflow. Recruiterflow leads none of the 7 criteria, and Alva Labs is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them. The advantage Alva Labs holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 78, Recruiterflow 33, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Alva Labs gains 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Recruiterflow 33
9.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Recruiterflow 18
7.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Recruiterflow 44
3.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Recruiterflow 33
2.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Recruiterflow 30
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Recruiterflow 56
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Recruiterflow 58
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +24.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.8 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 +24.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 33 | +45 | +9.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 18 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 44 | +24 | +3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 36 (F) | +25 | +24.8 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 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 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 | 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 | 6 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 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 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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