§ The result
Greenhouse leads Arctic Shores on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Greenhouse finishes 21 points clear of Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 46 (F) — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Greenhouse leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Arctic Shores is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Greenhouse leads is FRIA Support, Arctic Shores 35 to Greenhouse 42. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Greenhouse 86 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse 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
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Greenhouse under ATS-integrated 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 | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Greenhouse 86
9.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Greenhouse 78
5.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Greenhouse 58
3.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Greenhouse 66
1.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Greenhouse 42
1.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Greenhouse 64
1.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -21.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 21.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -21 beside that -21.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Greenhouse.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Greenhouse | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 78 | -28 | -5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 86 | -51 | -9.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 64 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 66 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 58 | -28 | -3.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 64 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 67 (D) | -21 | -21.4 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 1 | 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; Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse 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 Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Greenhouse 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