§ The result
Checkr leads Arctic Shores by 8 points.
Checkr scores 54 and Arctic Shores 46 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Checkr leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Arctic Shores leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 50, Checkr 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Checkr under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Arctic Shores is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Checkr 70
4.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Checkr 50
2.4 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Checkr 66
1.2 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Checkr 62
0.8 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Checkr 32
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Checkr 68
0.3 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Checkr.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 66 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 68 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -8.2 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr 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