§ The result
Harver leads Arena Analytics on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Harver (Assessment) opens a 24-point lead on Arena Analytics (Screening), 56 to 32. Arena Analytics leads none of the 7 criteria, and Harver is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arena Analytics 25, Harver 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
Arena Analytics is filed under Screening AI, Harver under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arena Analytics | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2015 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · Harver 80
9.9 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · Harver 65
7.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · Harver 55
1.9 weighted points to Harver
8% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · Harver 60
1.8 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arena Analytics 25 · Harver 35
1.5 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · Harver 50
1.4 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · Harver 40
1.4 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -24 beside that -25.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 65 | -35 | -7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 80 | -55 | -9.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 56 (F) | -24 | -25.0 |
§ 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 | Arena Analytics | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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% | 6 | 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 | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 10 | 0 | 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; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harver 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.
§ Where next