§ The result
Alva Labs leads Workstream on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Alva Labs (Assessment) opens a 22-point lead on Workstream (Screening), 61 (D) to 39 (F). Workstream leads none of the 7 criteria, and Alva Labs is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them. The advantage Alva Labs holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 78, Workstream 40, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 34% of the weighted points Alva Labs gains 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Alva Labs is filed under Assessment AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Workstream 40
7.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Workstream 20
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Workstream 47
3.1 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Workstream 35
2.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Workstream 27
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Workstream 56
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Workstream 61
0.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +22.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +22 beside that +22.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 40 | +38 | +7.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 20 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 27 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 47 | +21 | +3.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 61 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 35 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 39 (F) | +22 | +22.5 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 28 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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