§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Oleeo by 6 points.
Arctic Shores scores 46 and Oleeo 40 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Arctic Shores leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Oleeo leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Arctic Shores 57, Oleeo 45) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Arctic Shores 50, Oleeo 40), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 5 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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Oleeo 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 | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 1995 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Oleeo 40
2.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Oleeo 45
1.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Oleeo 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Oleeo 40
0.9 weighted points to Oleeo
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Oleeo 55
0.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Oleeo 55
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +5.2 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 6 | 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; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo last reviewed
- June 7, 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