§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Arctic Shores sits 10 points above Turing under rubric v1.0, 46 against 36, with both filed under Assessment. Arctic Shores is ahead of Turing on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Post-Market Monitoring at Arctic Shores 30 to Turing 27. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Arctic Shores 64, Turing 48) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Arctic Shores 57, Turing 44), the second being 21% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores 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 | Arctic Shores | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 21% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Turing 44
1.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Turing 42
1.6 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Turing 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Turing 45
1.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Turing 48
1.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Turing 28
1.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Turing 27
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 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 +9.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 45 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 27 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 48 | +16 | +1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 36 (F) | +10 | +9.3 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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