§ The result
HiPeople leads Talogy on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 19 points clear of Talogy inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 42 (F). HiPeople leads every one of the 7 criteria, Talogy none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, HiPeople 58 to Talogy 52. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 84, Talogy 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 7 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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
HiPeople and Talogy 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 | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Talogy 30
9.7 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Talogy 32
3.4 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Talogy 53
1.8 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Talogy 25
1.5 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Talogy 52
1.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Talogy 52
0.9 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Talogy 58
0.6 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +19.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 53 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 30 | +54 | +9.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 32 | +28 | +3.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 42 (F) | +19 | +19.1 |
§ 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 | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 22 | 9 | 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; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 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 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy last reviewed
- August 2, 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