§ The result
1 point separates Talogy and Paradox.
Talogy (Assessment) edges Paradox (Scheduling) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41. Talogy leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Paradox leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Paradox — Paradox 50, Talogy 30, on an 18% weight — which is 91% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
Vendor profile
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Paradox is filed under Scheduling AI, Talogy 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 Talogy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Paradox | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Paradox 50 · Talogy 30
3.6 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Paradox 40 · Talogy 53
2.6 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Paradox 45 · Talogy 52
1.1 weighted points to Talogy
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Paradox 45 · Talogy 58
1.0 weighted points to Talogy
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Paradox 35 · Talogy 32
0.4 weighted points to Paradox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Paradox 50 · Talogy 52
0.2 weighted points to Talogy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Paradox minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Paradox | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 53 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 30 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 42 (F) | -1 | -1.0 |
§ 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 | Paradox | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 2 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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.
§ Where next