§ The result
Infor Talent Science leads Aon Assessment on all 7 criteria.
Infor Talent Science sits 14 points above Aon Assessment under rubric v1.0, 49 against 35, with both filed under Assessment. Infor Talent Science leads every one of the 7 criteria, Aon Assessment none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Aon Assessment 45 to Infor Talent Science 50. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (Aon Assessment 25, Infor Talent Science 45) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Aon Assessment 40, Infor Talent Science 58), 26% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Aon Assessment
Aon Assessment Solutions (formerly cut-e) provides enterprise pre-hire psychometric assessments - ability, personality (ADEPT-15), situational-judgement, gamified cognitive (smartPredict/gridChallenge) tests and an AI-scored video interview tool (vidAssess-AI) - used to screen and rank job applicants at scale.
Vendor profile
Infor Talent Science
Infor Talent Science is a cloud-based pre-hire behavioral and cognitive assessment platform. It scores candidates against patented machine-learning 'Performance Profiles' built from the behavior and performance data of an employer's successful incumbents, and gives hiring teams fit scores, recommendations and interview questions that are used to rank and route applicants.
§ The record
Aon Assessment and Infor Talent Science are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Aon Assessment | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Aon Assessment 40 · Infor Talent Science 58
3.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Aon Assessment 38 · Infor Talent Science 57
2.9 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Aon Assessment 25 · Infor Talent Science 45
2.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Aon Assessment 30 · Infor Talent Science 42
2.2 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Aon Assessment 25 · Infor Talent Science 35
1.5 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Aon Assessment 48 · Infor Talent Science 60
1.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Aon Assessment 45 · Infor Talent Science 50
0.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Aon Assessment minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | Aon Assessment | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 57 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 45 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 49 (F) | -14 | -14.1 |
§ 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 | Aon Assessment | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Aon Assessment has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Aon Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Aon Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Aon Assessment last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Infor Talent Science 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