§ The result
Alva Labs leads Workable on all 7 criteria.
Alva Labs sits 13 points above Workable under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 48 (F) — with Alva Labs filed under Assessment and Workable under ATS-integrated. Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, Workable none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Alva Labs 63 to Workable 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 78, Workable 55, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Workable 55
4.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Workable 42
2.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Workable 25
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Workable 58
1.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Workable 42
1.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Workable 56
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Workable 62
0.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 55 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 48 (F) | +13 | +13.2 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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