§ The result
2 points separate Arctic Shores and Fountain.
Arctic Shores (Assessment) edges Fountain (Screening) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 44. Arctic Shores leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Customer Documentation, while Fountain leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Fountain takes Post-Market Monitoring at 12%, Arctic Shores 30 to Fountain 40, 83% of the weighted advantage Fountain holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Customer Documentation, Arctic Shores 64 to Fountain 52.
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
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Fountain 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 | Fountain |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Fountain 40
1.2 weighted points to Fountain
8% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Fountain 52
1.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Fountain 30
0.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Fountain 30
0.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Fountain 55
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Fountain 58
0.2 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Fountain.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Fountain | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 52 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 44 (F) | +2 | +1.5 |
§ 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 | Fountain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Sources 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; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fountain 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