§ The result
HiPeople leads Arctic Shores on 6 of the 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 15 points clear of Arctic Shores inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 46 (F). HiPeople 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 HiPeople leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Arctic Shores 57 to HiPeople 58. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, HiPeople 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage HiPeople 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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Arctic Shores and HiPeople 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 | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · HiPeople 84
8.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · HiPeople 60
3.6 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · HiPeople 62
2.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · HiPeople 62
0.7 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · HiPeople 66
0.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · HiPeople 58
0.1 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -15.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 84 | -49 | -8.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 60 | -30 | -3.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 66 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 61 (D) | -15 | -15.9 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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