HomeCompareKorn Ferry vs Talogy

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Korn Ferry vs Talogy

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

4 points separate Korn Ferry and Talogy.

Within the Assessment cohort, Korn Ferry edges Talogy by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. Korn Ferry leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Talogy leads 1, including Customer Documentation, and 3 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Korn Ferry 48, Talogy 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 74% of the weighted advantage Korn Ferry holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Korn Ferry and Talogy are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordKorn FerryTalogy
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded19691946

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 67% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Korn Ferry 48 · Talogy 30

    3.2 weighted points to Korn Ferry

  2. 20% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Korn Ferry 58 · Talogy 53

    1.0 weighted points to Korn Ferry

  3. 8% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Korn Ferry 52 · Talogy 58

    0.5 weighted points to Talogy

  4. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Korn Ferry 33 · Talogy 32

    0.1 weighted points to Korn Ferry

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.9.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Korn Ferry minus Talogy.

CategoryWeightKorn FerryTalogyΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5853+5+1.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%4830+18+3.2
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5252--
Human Oversight Design12%5252--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3332+1+0.1
Customer Documentation8%5258-6-0.5
Total100%46 (F)42 (F)+4+3.9

§ 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.

CriterionWeightKorn FerryTalogy
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%11Sources on the vendor's own domain32Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%0112
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%107Sources on the vendor's own domain229Sources on the vendor's own domain

Korn Ferry has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Korn Ferry, across 1 distinct source domain, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Korn Ferry last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Talogy last reviewed
August 2, 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.