§ The result
Turing leads Moonhub by 6 points.
Turing scores 36 and Moonhub 30 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Turing leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Moonhub leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Moonhub 30, Turing 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Turing holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
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
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Moonhub | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Turing 42
2.4 weighted points to Turing
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Turing 28
1.8 weighted points to Turing
8% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Turing 48
0.8 weighted points to Turing
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Turing 44
0.6 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Turing 27
0.6 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Turing 45
0.4 weighted points to Moonhub
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 28 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 27 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 36 (F) | -6 | -5.8 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 27 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 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