§ The result
Brainner leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Brainner, filed under Screening, comes out 10 points above Turing, filed under Assessment: 46 against 36 under rubric v1.0. Brainner takes all 7 criteria from Turing without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is FRIA Support, Brainner 30 to Turing 25. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Brainner 45, Turing 27) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Brainner 42, Turing 28), the second being 25% of the weighted advantage Brainner holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Brainner | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Turing 28
2.5 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Turing 27
2.2 weighted points to Brainner
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Turing 42
2.0 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Turing 44
1.3 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Turing 48
0.8 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Turing 45
0.6 weighted points to Brainner
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 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 +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 44 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 27 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 36 (F) | +10 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | Brainner | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner 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: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner 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