§ The result
4 points separate Feenyx and Turing.
Within the Assessment cohort, Feenyx edges Turing by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 40 to 36. Turing takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 4 for Feenyx, whose share includes Human Oversight Design, and 2 are level. Even Human Oversight Design, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 58, Turing 45, 12% weight), is only 36% of the weighted advantage Feenyx builds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
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
Feenyx and Turing are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Turing 45
1.6 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Turing 27
1.3 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Turing 44
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Turing 48
0.6 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Turing 28
0.5 weighted points to Turing
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 27 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 36 (F) | +4 | +3.8 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 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 Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx 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