§ The result
Infor Talent Science leads Arya by Leoforce by 11 points.
Infor Talent Science sits 11 points above Arya by Leoforce under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 38 — with Infor Talent Science filed under Assessment and Arya by Leoforce under Sourcing. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Infor Talent Science: Infor Talent Science is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Arya by Leoforce on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Arya by Leoforce 30, Infor Talent Science 58) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Arya by Leoforce
Leoforce's AI agents, successors to its long-running Arya matching platform, source candidates from a proprietary talent database, job boards and customers' ATS records, score and rank them for fit, engage them by email and SMS, prescreen career-site visitors and deliver pre-vetted, interview-ready applicants.
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
Arya by Leoforce is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Infor Talent Science 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 Infor Talent Science is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arya by Leoforce | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arya by Leoforce 30 · Infor Talent Science 58
5.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arya by Leoforce 30 · Infor Talent Science 45
1.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arya by Leoforce 25 · Infor Talent Science 35
1.5 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arya by Leoforce 48 · Infor Talent Science 57
1.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arya by Leoforce 46 · Infor Talent Science 60
1.1 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arya by Leoforce 54 · Infor Talent Science 50
0.5 weighted points to Arya by Leoforce
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arya by Leoforce 40 · Infor Talent Science 42
0.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arya by Leoforce minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | Arya by Leoforce | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 58 | -28 | -5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 45 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 46 | 60 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 49 (F) | -11 | -11.3 |
§ 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 | Arya by Leoforce | 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% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 2 | 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% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arya by Leoforce has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Arya by Leoforce, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arya by Leoforce last reviewed
- September 25, 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