§ The result
Sense leads Arctic Shores by 12 points.
Sense sits 12 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 46 — with Sense filed under Screening and Arctic Shores under Assessment. Sense leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Arctic Shores leads 1, including Customer Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Sense 72 — and at an 18% weight it carries 52% of the weighted advantage Sense 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Sense under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Sense 72
6.7 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Sense 52
2.6 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Sense 60
2.0 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Sense 64
1.0 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Sense 38
0.4 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Sense 62
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Sense 58
0.1 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.7 — 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 -12 beside that -12.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 72 | -37 | -6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 58 (F) | -12 | -12.7 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
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 Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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