HomeCompareFetcher vs Turing

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fetcher vs Turing

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

1 point separates Fetcher and Turing.

Fetcher (Sourcing) edges Turing (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 37 to 36. Fetcher leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Turing leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 2 are level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Turing — Fetcher 27, Turing 42, on a 20% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Turing holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.

§ The record

Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordFetcherTuring
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20142018

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 43% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fetcher 27 · Turing 42

    3.0 weighted points to Turing

  2. 15% weight · 66% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Fetcher 55 · Turing 44

    1.6 weighted points to Fetcher

  3. 12% weight · 80% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Fetcher 35 · Turing 27

    1.0 weighted points to Fetcher

  4. 12% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Fetcher 52 · Turing 45

    0.8 weighted points to Fetcher

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Fetcher 55 · Turing 48

    0.6 weighted points to Fetcher

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fetcher minus Turing.

CategoryWeightFetcherTuringΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2742-15-3.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2828--
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5544+11+1.6
Human Oversight Design12%5245+7+0.8
Post-Market Monitoring12%3527+8+1.0
Customer Documentation8%5548+7+0.6
Total100%37 (F)36 (F)+1+1.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFetcherTuring
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%136Sources on the vendor's own domain87Sources on the vendor's own domain

Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Fetcher last reviewed
July 17, 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.