§ The result
2 points separate Alooba and Turing.
Within the Assessment cohort, Alooba edges Turing by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 38 to 36. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Alooba: Alooba is ahead on Human Oversight Design and Turing on Bias Audit Transparency. Even Human Oversight Design, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 55, Turing 45, 12% weight), is only 33% of the weighted advantage Alooba builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
Alooba and Turing are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Turing 45
1.2 weighted points to Alooba
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Turing 28
1.1 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Turing 27
1.1 weighted points to Alooba
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Turing 48
0.8 weighted points to Alooba
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Turing 25
0.4 weighted points to Alooba
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Turing 42
0.4 weighted points to Turing
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Turing 44
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 28 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 44 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 27 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 36 (F) | +2 | +2.2 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing last reviewed
- July 17, 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