§ The result
Arctic Shores leads XOR by 16 points.
Arctic Shores finishes 16 points clear of XOR under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 30 — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while XOR leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, XOR 20, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, XOR 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 | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · XOR 20
6.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · XOR 18
3.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · XOR 42
2.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · XOR 40
1.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · XOR 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · XOR 48
1.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · XOR 33
0.4 weighted points to XOR
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 20 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 18 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 40 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 48 | +16 | +1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 30 (F) | +16 | +15.7 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 11 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR last reviewed
- July 17, 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