§ The result
Arctic Shores leads impress.ai by 8 points.
Arctic Shores scores 46 and impress.ai 38 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while impress.ai leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, impress.ai 35, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, impress.ai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | SG |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · impress.ai 35
3.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · impress.ai 22
2.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · impress.ai 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · impress.ai 52
0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · impress.ai 58
0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · impress.ai 55
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · impress.ai 32
0.2 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 35 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 22 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 38 (F) | +8 | +7.9 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai 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