§ The result
2 points separate Arctic Shores and UKG.
Arctic Shores (Assessment) edges UKG (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 44. Arctic Shores leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — UKG takes Post-Market Monitoring at 12%, Arctic Shores 30 to UKG 38, 100% of the weighted advantage UKG holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Customer Documentation, Arctic Shores 64 to UKG 55.
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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · UKG 38
1.0 weighted points to UKG
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · UKG 30
0.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · UKG 55
0.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · UKG 52
0.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
20% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · UKG 48
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 44 (F) | +2 | +1.7 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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