§ The result
Paycom leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Paycom sits 14 points above Turing under rubric v1.0 — 50 against 36 — with Paycom filed under ATS-integrated and Turing under Assessment. Paycom leads every one of the 7 criteria, Turing none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Paycom 30 to Turing 25. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Paycom 68, Turing 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
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
Paycom 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 | Paycom | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1998 | 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
Paycom 68 · Turing 42
5.2 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Paycom 62 · Turing 44
2.7 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Paycom 38 · Turing 28
1.8 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Paycom 38 · Turing 27
1.3 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Paycom 55 · Turing 45
1.2 weighted points to Paycom
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Paycom 60 · Turing 48
1.0 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Paycom 30 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +13.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Paycom minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Paycom | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 42 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 44 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 27 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 50 (F) | 36 (F) | +14 | +13.9 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Paycom | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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