§ The result
Checkr leads Arena Analytics on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Checkr opens a 22-point lead on Arena Analytics, 54 to 32, with both scored in the Screening cohort. Arena Analytics leads none of the 7 criteria, and Checkr is ahead on 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Arena Analytics 30, Checkr 70, 20% weight), is only 36% of the weighted advantage Checkr builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
§ The record
Arena Analytics and Checkr are both filed under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Arena Analytics is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arena Analytics | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · Checkr 70
8.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · Checkr 66
3.4 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · Checkr 62
3.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · Checkr 50
2.6 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · Checkr 68
2.4 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · Checkr 35
1.8 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arena Analytics 25 · Checkr 32
1.1 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -22 beside that -22.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Checkr.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 70 | -40 | -8.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 66 | -28 | -3.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 68 | -30 | -2.4 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 54 (F) | -22 | -22.3 |
§ 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 | Arena Analytics | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Arena Analytics sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 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