§ The result
Alva Labs leads Talogy on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs finishes 19 points clear of Talogy inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 42 (F). Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Talogy leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 58, Talogy 30, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 27% 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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Talogy are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1946 |
§ 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 · Talogy 30
5.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Talogy 53
5.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Talogy 52
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Talogy 32
2.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Talogy 25
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Talogy 52
1.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Talogy 58
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +18.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.9 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 +18.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 53 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 30 | +28 | +5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 52 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 32 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 42 (F) | +19 | +18.9 |
§ 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 | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 22 | 9 | 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; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 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 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy last reviewed
- August 2, 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