§ The result
Turing leads Cognisess by 6 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Turing on 36 and Cognisess on 30, 6 points apart. Cognisess takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Turing, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Cognisess 25, Turing 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Turing holds 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
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
Cognisess 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 | Cognisess | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Turing 42
3.4 weighted points to Turing
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Turing 28
1.4 weighted points to Turing
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to Turing
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Turing 48
0.6 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Turing 27
0.6 weighted points to Cognisess
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Turing 45
0.4 weighted points to Turing
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Turing 44
0.3 weighted points to Turing
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 27 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 36 (F) | -6 | -6.3 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess 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