§ The result
Pinpoint leads Arctic Shores on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint sits 11 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with Pinpoint filed under ATS-integrated and Arctic Shores under Assessment. Pinpoint leads every one of the 7 criteria, Arctic Shores none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Arctic Shores 64 to Pinpoint 66. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, Pinpoint 72, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | JE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Pinpoint 72
4.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Pinpoint 52
2.6 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Pinpoint 68
1.6 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Pinpoint 42
1.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Pinpoint 64
1.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Pinpoint 38
0.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Pinpoint 66
0.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 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 -11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 72 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 68 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 66 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 57 (F) | -11 | -11.5 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint 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