§ The result
Alva Labs leads softgarden on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Alva Labs (Assessment) opens a 19-point lead on softgarden (ATS-integrated), 61 (D) to 42 (F). Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, softgarden none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Alva Labs 63 to softgarden 58. 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, softgarden 42, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 37% 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | DE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2001 |
§ 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 · softgarden 42
7.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · softgarden 22
6.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · softgarden 54
2.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · softgarden 30
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · softgarden 44
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · softgarden 58
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · softgarden 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 +19.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +19.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 42 | +36 | +7.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 22 | +36 | +6.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 54 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 42 (F) | +19 | +19.3 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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