§ The result
Alva Labs leads Versant by Pearson on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs sits 12 points above Versant by Pearson under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) against 49 (F), with both filed under Assessment. Alva Labs is ahead of Versant by Pearson on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Human Oversight Design at Alva Labs 63 to Versant by Pearson 56. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Alva Labs 58, Versant by Pearson 42) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Alva Labs 78, Versant by Pearson 63), 25% 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
Versant by Pearson
Versant by Pearson is a suite of AI-scored English proficiency tests (plus spoken Spanish, French, Arabic and Dutch) that automatically score candidates' spoken and written responses on Pearson's Global Scale of English within minutes, used by employers such as contact centres and BPOs to screen applicants and benchmark staff through the ScoreKeeper dashboard.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Versant by Pearson 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 | Versant by Pearson |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1844 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Versant by Pearson 63
3.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Versant by Pearson 42
2.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Versant by Pearson 53
2.3 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Versant by Pearson 30
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Versant by Pearson 43
1.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Versant by Pearson 56
0.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Versant by Pearson 61
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Versant by Pearson.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Versant by Pearson | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 63 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 53 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 56 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 43 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 61 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 49 (F) | +12 | +11.8 |
§ 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 | Versant by Pearson | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 2 | 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 | 23 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Versant by Pearson has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Versant by Pearson sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for Versant by Pearson, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Versant by Pearson 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