§ The result
Infor Talent Science leads Recruiterflow by 13 points.
Infor Talent Science sits 13 points above Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 36 — with Infor Talent Science filed under Assessment and Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated. Recruiterflow takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Infor Talent Science, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Infor Talent Science 58, Recruiterflow 33, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science holds across the 6 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Infor Talent Science is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Infor Talent Science is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Infor Talent Science | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Infor Talent Science 58 · Recruiterflow 33
5.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Infor Talent Science 42 · Recruiterflow 18
4.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Infor Talent Science 57 · Recruiterflow 44
1.9 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Infor Talent Science 45 · Recruiterflow 33
1.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Infor Talent Science 50 · Recruiterflow 58
1.0 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Infor Talent Science 35 · Recruiterflow 30
0.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Infor Talent Science 60 · Recruiterflow 56
0.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Infor Talent Science minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Infor Talent Science | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 33 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 18 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 33 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 36 (F) | +13 | +12.8 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Infor Talent Science last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow last reviewed
- September 25, 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.