§ The result
Tengai leads Arena Analytics on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Screening entries Tengai and Arena Analytics at 42 and 32, a gap of 10 points. Tengai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Arena Analytics none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Arena Analytics 25 to Tengai 28. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Human Oversight Design (Arena Analytics 38, Tengai 58) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Arena Analytics 30, Tengai 45), the second being 29% of the weighted advantage Tengai 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Arena Analytics and Tengai 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 | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · Tengai 45
3.0 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · Tengai 58
2.4 weighted points to Tengai
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · Tengai 33
1.4 weighted points to Tengai
8% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · Tengai 55
1.4 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · Tengai 50
1.2 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · Tengai 33
0.6 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arena Analytics 25 · Tengai 28
0.4 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 45 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 58 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 42 (F) | -10 | -10.4 |
§ 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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 37 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Arena Analytics and Tengai 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 Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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