§ The result
impress.ai leads Arena Analytics by 6 points.
impress.ai scores 38 and Arena Analytics 32 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Screening cohort. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of impress.ai, with 1 level: impress.ai is ahead on Data Governance Disclosure and Arena Analytics on Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Arena Analytics 38, impress.ai 58) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Arena Analytics 42, impress.ai 55), the second being 29% of the weighted advantage impress.ai holds across the 5 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Arena Analytics and impress.ai are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Assessment.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arena Analytics | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · impress.ai 55
1.9 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · impress.ai 52
1.7 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · impress.ai 58
1.6 weighted points to impress.ai
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · impress.ai 35
1.0 weighted points to impress.ai
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · impress.ai 22
0.5 weighted points to Arena Analytics
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · impress.ai 32
0.5 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 58 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 38 (F) | -6 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai 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