§ The result
iMocha leads Talogy on all 7 criteria.
iMocha sits 14 points above Talogy under rubric v1.0, 56 against 42, with both filed under Assessment. iMocha is ahead of Talogy on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Customer Documentation at iMocha 66 to Talogy 58. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (iMocha 48, Talogy 32) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (iMocha 68, Talogy 53), the second being 22% of the weighted advantage iMocha holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
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
iMocha 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 | iMocha | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iMocha 68 · Talogy 53
3.0 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iMocha 44 · Talogy 30
2.5 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iMocha 66 · Talogy 52
2.1 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iMocha 38 · Talogy 25
1.9 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iMocha 48 · Talogy 32
1.9 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iMocha 64 · Talogy 52
1.4 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iMocha 66 · Talogy 58
0.6 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +13.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iMocha minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | iMocha | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 53 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 52 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 32 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +13.6 |
§ 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 | iMocha | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 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 iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iMocha last reviewed
- July 17, 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