§ The result
Alva Labs leads Workday Recruiting AI by 5 points.
Alva Labs scores 61 (D) and Workday Recruiting AI 56 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Alva Labs leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Workday Recruiting AI leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alva Labs 52, Workday Recruiting AI 35, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 5 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Workday Recruiting AI under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
2.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
1.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
0.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 70 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 55 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 65 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 35 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 65 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 56 (F) | +5 | +5.7 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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