HomeCompareADP vs Talogy

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

ADP vs Talogy

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

ADP leads Talogy on 5 of the 7 criteria.

ADP scores 48 and Talogy 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. ADP leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Talogy is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 ADP leads is FRIA Support, ADP 28 to Talogy 25. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — ADP 46, Talogy 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage ADP holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

ADP is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Talogy under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Talogy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordADPTalogy
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded19491946

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 48% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    ADP 46 · Talogy 30

    2.9 weighted points to ADP

  2. 12% weight · 74% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    ADP 45 · Talogy 32

    1.6 weighted points to ADP

  3. 15% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    ADP 57 · Talogy 52

    0.8 weighted points to ADP

  4. 15% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    ADP 28 · Talogy 25

    0.4 weighted points to ADP

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    ADP 55 · Talogy 52

    0.4 weighted points to ADP

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 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 +6.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is ADP minus Talogy.

CategoryWeightADPTalogyΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5353--
Bias Audit Transparency18%4630+16+2.9
FRIA Support15%2825+3+0.4
Data Governance Disclosure15%5752+5+0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5552+3+0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%4532+13+1.6
Customer Documentation8%5858--
Total100%48 (F)42 (F)+6+6.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightADPTalogy
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%21Sources on the vendor's own domain32Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain12
Data Governance Disclosure15%40Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%30Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%185Sources on the vendor's own domain229Sources on the vendor's own domain

ADP has 23 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 23 for ADP, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
ADP last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Talogy 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.