§ The result
TalentLens leads Oleeo on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, TalentLens, filed under Assessment, finishes on 46 and Oleeo, filed under ATS-integrated, on 40, 6 points apart. TalentLens takes all 7 criteria from Oleeo without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Human Oversight Design, Oleeo 55 to TalentLens 57. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Oleeo 40, TalentLens 52 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage TalentLens holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
Vendor profile
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
Oleeo is filed under ATS-integrated AI, TalentLens under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only TalentLens is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Oleeo | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 1995 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oleeo 40 · TalentLens 52
2.4 weighted points to TalentLens
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oleeo 40 · TalentLens 45
0.9 weighted points to TalentLens
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oleeo 25 · TalentLens 30
0.8 weighted points to TalentLens
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oleeo 45 · TalentLens 50
0.8 weighted points to TalentLens
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oleeo 55 · TalentLens 57
0.2 weighted points to TalentLens
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Oleeo 30 · TalentLens 32
0.2 weighted points to TalentLens
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oleeo 55 · TalentLens 58
0.2 weighted points to TalentLens
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 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 -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oleeo minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | Oleeo | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 45 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 46 (F) | -6 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 24 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oleeo last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens 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.
§ Where next