§ The result
hackajob leads Arena Analytics by 13 points.
hackajob sits 13 points above Arena Analytics under rubric v1.0 — 45 against 32 — with hackajob filed under Sourcing and Arena Analytics under Screening. hackajob leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Arena Analytics leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Arena Analytics 30, hackajob 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 42% of the weighted advantage hackajob holds across the 6 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
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
§ The record
Arena Analytics is filed under Screening AI, hackajob under Candidate sourcing 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 | hackajob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · hackajob 60
6.0 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · hackajob 58
2.4 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · hackajob 55
2.0 weighted points to hackajob
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · hackajob 60
1.8 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · hackajob 38
1.2 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arena Analytics 25 · hackajob 32
1.1 weighted points to hackajob
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · hackajob 20
0.9 weighted points to Arena Analytics
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -13.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus hackajob.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | hackajob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 60 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 45 (F) | -13 | -13.5 |
§ 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 | hackajob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 38 | 4 | Sources 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; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 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 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- hackajob 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.
§ Where next