§ The result
Findem leads Arctic Shores by 12 points.
Findem sits 12 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 46 — with Findem filed under Sourcing and Arctic Shores under Assessment. Findem leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Arctic Shores leads 1, including Customer Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Findem 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Findem 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Findem 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 | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Findem 83
8.6 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Findem 58
1.6 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Findem 42
1.4 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Findem 60
0.5 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Findem 58
0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Findem 38
0.4 weighted points to Findem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -12.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 83 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 58 (F) | -12 | -12.1 |
§ 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 | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 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