§ The result
iMocha leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
iMocha finishes 20 points clear of Turing inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 56 against 36. iMocha leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Turing leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (iMocha 68, Turing 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 27% 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
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
iMocha and Turing 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 | iMocha | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iMocha 68 · Turing 42
5.2 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iMocha 66 · Turing 44
3.3 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iMocha 44 · Turing 28
2.9 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iMocha 48 · Turing 27
2.5 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iMocha 64 · Turing 45
2.3 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iMocha 38 · Turing 25
1.9 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iMocha 66 · Turing 48
1.4 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +20 beside that +19.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iMocha minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | iMocha | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 42 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 28 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 66 | 44 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 45 | +19 | +2.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 27 | +21 | +2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 48 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 36 (F) | +20 | +19.6 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iMocha last reviewed
- July 17, 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