§ The result
Hireology leads Arctic Shores by 11 points.
Hireology sits 11 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with Hireology filed under ATS-integrated and Arctic Shores under Assessment. Hireology leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Arctic Shores leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Arctic Shores 35, Hireology 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 71% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Hireology 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 | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Hireology 83
8.6 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Hireology 59
3.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Hireology 52
0.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Hireology 58
0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Hireology 57
0.1 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -11.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 83 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 59 | -29 | -3.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 57 (F) | -11 | -11.0 |
§ 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 | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | 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; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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