Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Glider AI vs Infor Talent Science
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Infor Talent Science
Infor Talent Science is a cloud-based pre-hire behavioral and cognitive assessment platform. It scores candidates against patented machine-learning 'Performance Profiles' built from the behavior and performance data of an employer's successful incumbents, and gives hiring teams fit scores, recommendations and interview questions that are used to rank and route applicants.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Glider AI takes the total, Infor Talent Science takes more of the criteria.
Glider AI holds a 3-point edge over Infor Talent Science under rubric v1.0, 52 to 49, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Infor Talent Science leads more of the criteria, 3 against 2 for Glider AI, yet Glider AI takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Glider AI 68, Infor Talent Science 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 89% of the weighted advantage Glider AI holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Glider AI2
- Infor Talent Science3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency68 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Glider AI and Infor Talent Science are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Glider AI | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2020 | 2002 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight62% of the movement so far
Glider AI68Infor Talent Science424.7 weighted points to Glider AI
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight78% of the movement so far
Glider AI52Infor Talent Science581.2 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight86% of the movement so far
Glider AI55Infor Talent Science500.6 weighted points to Glider AI
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight94% of the movement so far
Glider AI40Infor Talent Science450.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Glider AI54Infor Talent Science570.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +3.0 — 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 +3 beside that +3.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Infor Talent Science, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 42 | +26 | +4.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 45 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 52F | 49F | +3 | +3.0 |
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.
| Criterion | Weight | Glider AI | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Glider AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Infor Talent Science last reviewed
- September 25, 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.