§ The result
iCIMS leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
iCIMS finishes 19 points clear of Turing under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 36 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. iCIMS leads every one of the 7 criteria, Turing none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, iCIMS 56 to Turing 44. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (iCIMS 68, Turing 28, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Vendor profile
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.
§ The record
iCIMS is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iCIMS | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2000 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iCIMS 68 · Turing 28
7.2 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iCIMS 58 · Turing 42
3.2 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iCIMS 38 · Turing 25
1.9 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iCIMS 56 · Turing 44
1.8 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iCIMS 42 · Turing 27
1.8 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iCIMS 58 · Turing 45
1.6 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iCIMS 62 · Turing 48
1.1 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +18.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.6 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 +18.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iCIMS minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | iCIMS | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 28 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 44 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 27 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 36 (F) | +19 | +18.6 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 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.
§ Where next