§ The result
Infor Talent Science takes the total, HiBob takes more of the criteria.
Infor Talent Science holds a 3-point edge over HiBob under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. HiBob leads more of the criteria, 3 against 2 for Infor Talent Science, yet Infor Talent Science 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 — HiBob 20, Infor Talent Science 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 87% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
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
HiBob is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Infor Talent Science under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Infor Talent Science is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiBob | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiBob 20 · Infor Talent Science 42
4.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiBob 63 · Infor Talent Science 50
1.6 weighted points to HiBob
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiBob 55 · Infor Talent Science 58
0.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiBob 47 · Infor Talent Science 45
0.2 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiBob 61 · Infor Talent Science 60
0.1 weighted points to HiBob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -2.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 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 -2.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiBob minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | HiBob | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 50 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 45 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 60 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 49 (F) | -3 | -2.7 |
§ 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 | HiBob | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 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 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiBob 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.
§ Where next