HomeCompareArctic Shores vs softgarden

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Arctic Shores vs softgarden

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

4 points separate Arctic Shores and softgarden.

Arctic Shores holds a 4-point edge over softgarden under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. softgarden takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for Arctic Shores, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Arctic Shores takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Arctic Shores 35, softgarden 22), which is 42% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Arctic Shores 30 to softgarden 44.

§ The record

Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, softgarden 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.

RecordArctic Shoressoftgarden
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersGBDE
Founded20132001

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 31% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Arctic Shores 35 · softgarden 22

    2.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores

  2. 12% weight · 53% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Arctic Shores 30 · softgarden 44

    1.7 weighted points to softgarden

  3. 20% weight · 75% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Arctic Shores 50 · softgarden 42

    1.6 weighted points to Arctic Shores

  4. 15% weight · 84% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Arctic Shores 35 · softgarden 30

    0.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores

  5. 8% weight · 91% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Arctic Shores 64 · softgarden 58

    0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores

  6. 15% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Arctic Shores 57 · softgarden 54

    0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores

  7. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Arctic Shores 56 · softgarden 58

    0.2 weighted points to softgarden

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Arctic Shores minus softgarden.

CategoryWeightArctic ShoressoftgardenΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5042+8+1.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%3522+13+2.3
FRIA Support15%3530+5+0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5754+3+0.4
Human Oversight Design12%5658-2-0.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%3044-14-1.7
Customer Documentation8%6458+6+0.5
Total100%46 (F)42 (F)+4+3.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightArctic Shoressoftgarden
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domain61Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31—31Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%61Sources on the vendor's own domain70Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain51Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%61Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%277Sources on the vendor's own domain315Audit 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Arctic Shores last reviewed
August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
softgarden 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.