§ The result
TalentLens leads Cognisess on 6 of the 7 criteria.
The Assessment cohort pairing of TalentLens and Cognisess comes out 46 to 30 under rubric v1.0, a 16-point lead for TalentLens. Cognisess is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: TalentLens takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Data Governance Disclosure, Cognisess 42 to TalentLens 50. The advantage TalentLens holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cognisess 25, TalentLens 52, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 34% of the weighted points TalentLens gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
Vendor profile
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
Cognisess and TalentLens 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 | Cognisess | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2011 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · TalentLens 52
5.4 weighted points to TalentLens
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · TalentLens 45
4.5 weighted points to TalentLens
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · TalentLens 57
1.8 weighted points to TalentLens
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · TalentLens 30
1.5 weighted points to TalentLens
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · TalentLens 58
1.4 weighted points to TalentLens
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · TalentLens 50
1.2 weighted points to TalentLens
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -15.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -15.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 52 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 45 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 57 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 46 (F) | -16 | -15.8 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens 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