§ The result
1 point separates Arctic Shores and hackajob.
Arctic Shores holds a 1-point edge over hackajob under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Arctic Shores: Arctic Shores is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and hackajob on Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, hackajob 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 4 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
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, hackajob 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 | hackajob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · hackajob 20
2.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · hackajob 60
2.0 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · hackajob 38
1.0 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · hackajob 32
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · hackajob 60
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · hackajob 58
0.1 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · hackajob 55
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus hackajob.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | hackajob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 60 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 45 (F) | +1 | +0.5 |
§ 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 | hackajob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 38 | 4 | 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; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 76 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- hackajob 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