§ The result
Plum takes the total, Arctic Shores takes more of the criteria.
Plum scores 54 and Arctic Shores 46 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Arctic Shores leads more of the criteria than Plum — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Plum leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Plum. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Plum 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 79% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 3 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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
Arctic Shores and Plum 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 | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | CA |
| Founded | 2013 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Plum 83
8.6 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Plum 58
1.6 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Plum 28
1.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Plum 36
0.7 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Plum 52
0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Plum 54
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Plum 63
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 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 -8.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 83 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 36 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 63 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -8.9 |
§ 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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum 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