§ The result
Alva Labs leads Textkernel on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs sits 10 points above Textkernel under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 51 (F) — with Alva Labs filed under Assessment and Textkernel under Sourcing. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, Textkernel none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Alva Labs 58 to Textkernel 55. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Textkernel 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 45% 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Textkernel under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and ATS-integrated.
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 | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | NL |
| Founded | 2017 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Textkernel 55
4.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Textkernel 55
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Textkernel 40
1.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Textkernel 32
0.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Textkernel 55
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Textkernel 62
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Textkernel 60
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 55 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 55 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 51 (F) | +10 | +10.3 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel 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