§ The result
HiPeople leads Infor Talent Science on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Assessment entries HiPeople and Infor Talent Science at 61 (D) and 49 (F), a gap of 12 points. Infor Talent Science is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: HiPeople takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Data Governance Disclosure, HiPeople 58 to Infor Talent Science 57. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 84, Infor Talent Science 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
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
HiPeople and Infor Talent Science are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Infor Talent Science 42
7.6 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Infor Talent Science 45
1.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Infor Talent Science 50
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Infor Talent Science 58
0.8 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Infor Talent Science 60
0.5 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Infor Talent Science 57
0.1 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +12.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 42 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 45 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 49 (F) | +12 | +12.2 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople 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