§ The result
Talogy leads Cognisess on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Assessment entries Talogy and Cognisess at 42 and 30, a gap of 12 points. Cognisess is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Talogy takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is FRIA Support, Cognisess 20 to Talogy 25. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cognisess 25, Talogy 53 — and at a 20% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Talogy holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Cognisess and Talogy 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 | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Talogy 53
5.6 weighted points to Talogy
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Talogy 30
1.8 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Talogy 52
1.5 weighted points to Talogy
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Talogy 58
1.4 weighted points to Talogy
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Talogy 52
1.2 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Talogy 25
0.8 weighted points to Talogy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 53 | -28 | -5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 42 (F) | -12 | -12.3 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | 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 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 | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy last reviewed
- August 2, 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