§ The result
Criteria leads Talogy on all 7 criteria.
Criteria sits 11 points above Talogy under rubric v1.0, 53 against 42, with both filed under Assessment. Criteria is ahead of Talogy on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Customer Documentation at Criteria 60 to Talogy 58. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Criteria 48, Talogy 30, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Criteria holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
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
Criteria 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 | Criteria | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · Talogy 30
3.2 weighted points to Criteria
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · Talogy 53
3.0 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Criteria 62 · Talogy 52
1.5 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · Talogy 32
1.2 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · Talogy 25
1.1 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · Talogy 52
0.5 weighted points to Criteria
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · Talogy 58
0.2 weighted points to Criteria
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 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 +10.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Criteria minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 53 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 42 (F) | +11 | +10.6 |
§ 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 | Criteria | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 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