§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Arctic Shores by 10 points.
Workday Recruiting AI sits 10 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 46 — with Workday Recruiting AI filed under ATS-integrated and Arctic Shores under Assessment. Workday Recruiting AI leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Arctic Shores leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Workday Recruiting AI 60 — and at an 18% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI holds across the 5 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Workday Recruiting AI under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Arctic Shores is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
4.5 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
4.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
1.1 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.1 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 60 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 65 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 65 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.0 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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.