§ The result
Arctic Shores leads AmazingHiring by 9 points.
Arctic Shores scores 46 and AmazingHiring 37 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while AmazingHiring leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (AmazingHiring 35, Arctic Shores 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Arctic Shores under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Arctic Shores is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Arctic Shores |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2011 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Arctic Shores 50
3.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Arctic Shores 35
2.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Arctic Shores 57
1.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Arctic Shores 56
1.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Arctic Shores 64
1.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Arctic Shores 35
0.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Arctic Shores 30
0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Arctic Shores.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Arctic Shores | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 64 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 46 (F) | -9 | -8.7 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Arctic Shores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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