Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Gloat vs Infor Talent Science
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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
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.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Gloat3
- Infor Talent Science4
- Widest raw gap
- Human Oversight Design62 vs 50
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
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
| 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.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight34% of the movement so far
Gloat48Infor Talent Science582.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight59% of the movement so far
Gloat62Infor Talent Science501.4 weighted points to Gloat
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight76% of the movement so far
Gloat28Infor Talent Science351.1 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 4
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight89% of the movement so far
Gloat38Infor Talent Science420.7 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
Gloat42Infor Talent Science450.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
Gloat62Infor Talent Science600.2 weighted points to Gloat
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Gloat58Infor Talent Science570.1 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 47F | 49F | -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.