§ The result
Infor Talent Science takes the total, Hogan Assessments takes more of the criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, Infor Talent Science edges Hogan Assessments by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 47. Hogan Assessments leads more of the criteria than Infor Talent Science — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Infor Talent Science leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Infor Talent Science. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Hogan Assessments 50, Infor Talent Science 58) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 54% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
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
Hogan Assessments and Infor Talent Science are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hogan Assessments | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1987 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hogan Assessments 50 · Infor Talent Science 58
1.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hogan Assessments 52 · Infor Talent Science 57
0.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hogan Assessments 40 · Infor Talent Science 45
0.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hogan Assessments 44 · Infor Talent Science 42
0.4 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hogan Assessments 52 · Infor Talent Science 50
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hogan Assessments 62 · Infor Talent Science 60
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hogan Assessments 36 · Infor Talent Science 35
0.1 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.9 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 -2.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hogan Assessments minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | Hogan Assessments | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 42 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 45 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 49 (F) | -2 | -2.0 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | 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% | 3 | 1 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 6 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 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 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