§ The result
Alva Labs leads Testlify on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Alva Labs opens a 16-point lead on Testlify, 61 (D) to 45 (F), with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, Testlify none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Alva Labs 38 to Testlify 33. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Alva Labs 58, Testlify 30) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Alva Labs 78, Testlify 52), 33% 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
Testlify
Testlify is a skills-assessment and AI-interviewing platform that ranks candidates on a scored leaderboard from pre-built or AI-generated tests, with an AI résumé screener, AI-scored video, voice and chat interviews, and AI-assisted proctoring.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Testlify 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 | Testlify |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Testlify 52
5.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Testlify 30
5.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Testlify 55
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Testlify 42
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Testlify 55
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Testlify 33
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Testlify 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Testlify.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Testlify | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 52 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 30 | +28 | +5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 55 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 45 (F) | +16 | +15.7 |
§ 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 | Testlify | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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; Testlify 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 Testlify, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Testlify 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