Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Infor Talent Science vs Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Export comparison (CSV)Pro→§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads Infor Talent Science by 7 points.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) scores 56 and Infor Talent Science 49 under rubric v1.0 — a 7-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Infor Talent Science and Pymetrics (Harver Games), with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Infor Talent Science 42, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 71% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
§ The record
Infor Talent Science and Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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 | Infor Talent Science | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Infor Talent Science 42 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
6.8 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Infor Talent Science 58 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
2.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Infor Talent Science 35 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25
1.5 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Infor Talent Science 45 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
1.2 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Infor Talent Science 57 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Infor Talent Science 60 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Infor Talent Science minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | Infor Talent Science | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 70 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 80 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 35 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 56 (F) | -7 | -6.6 |
§ 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 | Infor Talent Science | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Infor Talent Science last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) last reviewed
- May 21, 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