§ The result
2 points separate impress.ai and Turing.
impress.ai (Screening) edges Turing (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 38 to 36. impress.ai leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Turing leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — impress.ai 55, Turing 44 — and at a 15% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage impress.ai holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
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
impress.ai is filed under Screening AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | impress.ai | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · Turing 44
1.6 weighted points to impress.ai
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · Turing 42
1.4 weighted points to Turing
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · Turing 28
1.1 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
impress.ai 52 · Turing 45
0.8 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · Turing 48
0.8 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · Turing 27
0.6 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 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 +1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 28 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 27 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 36 (F) | +2 | +1.4 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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