§ The result
4 points separate Arctic Shores and Draup.
Arctic Shores (Assessment) edges Draup (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Draup leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Draup 25 — and at a 15% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 6 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
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 40% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Draup 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Draup 57
0.6 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Draup 54
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Draup 48
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Draup 33
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Draup 58
0.2 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Draup 28
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 57 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 42 (F) | +4 | +3.3 |
§ 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 | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup 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