HomeComparePlum vs TestDome

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Plum vs TestDome

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Plum leads TestDome on 5 of the 7 criteria.

Plum finishes 17 points clear of TestDome inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 54 against 37. Plum leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so TestDome is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Plum leads is Customer Documentation, Plum 63 to TestDome 60. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Plum 83, TestDome 15) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 5 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Plum and TestDome 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.

RecordPlumTestDome
Price tierMidLow
HeadquartersCAHR
Founded20122013

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 70% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Plum 83 · TestDome 15

    12.2 weighted points to Plum

  2. 20% weight · 91% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Plum 58 · TestDome 40

    3.6 weighted points to Plum

  3. 12% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Plum 36 · TestDome 30

    0.7 weighted points to Plum

  4. 15% weight · 99% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Plum 54 · TestDome 50

    0.6 weighted points to Plum

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Plum 63 · TestDome 60

    0.2 weighted points to Plum

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +17.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +17 beside that +17.4.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Plum minus TestDome.

CategoryWeightPlumTestDomeΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5840+18+3.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%8315+68+12.2
FRIA Support15%2828--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5450+4+0.6
Human Oversight Design12%5252--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3630+6+0.7
Customer Documentation8%6360+3+0.2
Total100%54 (F)37 (F)+17+17.4

§ 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.

CriterionWeightPlumTestDome
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%30Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%30Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain31—
FRIA Support15%01—11—
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%30Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%154Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain275Sources on the vendor's own domain

Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; TestDome has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for TestDome, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Plum last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
TestDome 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.