§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Infor Talent Science by 8 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) scores 57 and Infor Talent Science 49 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Infor Talent Science and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) each lead 2 of the 7 criteria, with 3 level, though the side of the split Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Infor Talent Science 42, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 86% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
Infor Talent Science is filed under Assessment AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Infor Talent Science is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Infor Talent Science | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Infor Talent Science 42 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
7.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Infor Talent Science 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
1.2 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Infor Talent Science 45 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
1.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Infor Talent Science 57 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
0.1 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Infor Talent Science minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Infor Talent Science | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 84 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 57 (F) | -8 | -7.4 |
§ 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 | Infor Talent Science | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Infor Talent Science last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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.