Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Turing
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
hackajob leads Turing by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, hackajob, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 45 and Turing, filed under Assessment, on 36, 9 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of hackajob: hackajob is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Turing on Bias Audit Transparency. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (hackajob 60, Turing 42, 20% weight), is only 35% of the weighted advantage hackajob builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob6
- Turing1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation60 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Turing is in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2018 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight31% of the movement so far
hackajob60Turing423.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight49% of the movement so far
hackajob58Turing442.1 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight61% of the movement so far
hackajob20Turing281.4 weighted points to Turing
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight72% of the movement so far
hackajob38Turing271.3 weighted points to hackajob
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight83% of the movement so far
hackajob55Turing451.2 weighted points to hackajob
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight92% of the movement so far
hackajob32Turing251.1 weighted points to hackajob
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60Turing481.0 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Turing, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 27 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 36F | +9 | +8.8 |
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 | hackajob | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob 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.