§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Paradox by 5 points.
Arctic Shores scores 46 and Paradox 41 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Scheduling cohorts. Arctic Shores leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Paradox leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Paradox takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, Arctic Shores 35 to Paradox 50, 82% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Customer Documentation, Arctic Shores 64 to Paradox 45.
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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Paradox 50
2.7 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Paradox 40
2.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Paradox 45
1.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Paradox 45
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Paradox 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Paradox 50
0.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Paradox 35
0.6 weighted points to Paradox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 45 | +19 | +1.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +4.2 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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