§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Qureos by 13 points.
Arctic Shores, filed under Assessment, comes out 13 points above Qureos, filed under Screening: 46 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Qureos leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Arctic Shores 35, Qureos 12) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Arctic Shores 50, Qureos 28), the second being 33% 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos 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 | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Qureos 28
4.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Qureos 12
4.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Qureos 44
1.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Qureos 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Qureos 52
1.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Qureos 35
0.6 weighted points to Qureos
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Qureos 54
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 28 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 12 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 52 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 33 (F) | +13 | +12.6 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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