§ The result
isolved leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
isolved sits 11 points above Turing under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 36 — with isolved filed under ATS-integrated and Turing under Assessment. isolved leads every one of the 7 criteria, Turing none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, isolved 30 to Turing 25. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (isolved 47, Turing 27) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (isolved 45, Turing 28), 28% of the weighted advantage isolved builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
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
isolved is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | isolved | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Turing 28
3.1 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · Turing 27
2.4 weighted points to isolved
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Turing 42
1.6 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Turing 44
1.3 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Turing 45
1.2 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to isolved
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
isolved 56 · Turing 48
0.6 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +11.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 28 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 44 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 27 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 36 (F) | +11 | +11.0 |
§ 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 | isolved | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved 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: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 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