§ The result
Infor Talent Science leads UKG by 5 points.
Infor Talent Science scores 49 and UKG 44 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Infor Talent Science leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Infor Talent Science 42, UKG 30, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science builds across the 5 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Infor Talent Science is filed under Assessment AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Infor Talent Science 42 · UKG 30
2.2 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Infor Talent Science 58 · UKG 48
2.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Infor Talent Science 45 · UKG 38
0.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Infor Talent Science 60 · UKG 55
0.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Infor Talent Science 50 · UKG 52
0.2 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Infor Talent Science 57 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Infor Talent Science minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Infor Talent Science | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 38 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 44 (F) | +5 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Infor Talent Science last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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.
§ Where next