§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Feenyx by 6 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Arctic Shores on 46 and Feenyx on 40, 6 points apart. Arctic Shores leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Feenyx leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Arctic Shores 35, Feenyx 25, 18% weight), is only 27% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Arctic Shores and Feenyx are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Feenyx 25
1.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Feenyx 42
1.6 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Feenyx 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Feenyx 50
1.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Feenyx 38
1.0 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Feenyx 55
0.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Feenyx 58
0.2 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +5.5 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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 | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx 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: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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