§ The result
2 points separate Infor Talent Science and Gloat.
Infor Talent Science (Assessment) edges Gloat (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 47. Infor Talent Science leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Gloat leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Infor Talent Science (Gloat 48, Infor Talent Science 58), 48% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Human Oversight Design, Gloat 62 to Infor Talent Science 50.
Vendor profile
Gloat
Gloat is an AI-powered internal talent marketplace and "agentic HR" platform that matches an employer's existing employees to internal job openings, gigs, projects, mentorships, and learning based on inferred skills and career goals.
Vendor profile
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.
§ The record
Gloat is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Infor Talent Science under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Gloat | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Gloat 48 · Infor Talent Science 58
2.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Gloat 62 · Infor Talent Science 50
1.4 weighted points to Gloat
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Gloat 28 · Infor Talent Science 35
1.1 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Gloat 38 · Infor Talent Science 42
0.7 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Gloat 42 · Infor Talent Science 45
0.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Gloat 62 · Infor Talent Science 60
0.2 weighted points to Gloat
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Gloat 58 · Infor Talent Science 57
0.1 weighted points to Gloat
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gloat minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | Gloat | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 49 (F) | -2 | -2.4 |
§ 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 | Gloat | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gloat last reviewed
- August 2, 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.
§ Where next