§ The result
iMocha leads Arctic Shores on all 7 criteria.
iMocha sits 10 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0, 56 against 46, with both filed under Assessment. iMocha is ahead of Arctic Shores on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Customer Documentation at Arctic Shores 64 to iMocha 66. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, iMocha 68, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage iMocha holds across the 7 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
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
§ The record
Arctic Shores and iMocha 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 | iMocha |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | IN |
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · iMocha 68
3.6 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · iMocha 48
2.2 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · iMocha 44
1.6 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · iMocha 66
1.3 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · iMocha 64
1.0 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · iMocha 38
0.4 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · iMocha 66
0.2 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus iMocha.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | iMocha | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 68 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 66 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.3 |
§ 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 | iMocha | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 21 | 5 | 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; iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iMocha last reviewed
- July 17, 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