§ The result
Talogy leads Qureos by 9 points.
Talogy scores 42 and Qureos 33 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Talogy, with 1 level: Talogy is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Qureos on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Qureos 28, Talogy 53) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Talogy holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
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
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Talogy under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Qureos | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AE | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Talogy 53
5.0 weighted points to Talogy
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Talogy 30
3.2 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Talogy 52
1.2 weighted points to Talogy
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Talogy 58
0.5 weighted points to Talogy
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Talogy 32
0.4 weighted points to Qureos
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Talogy 52
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Qureos minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 53 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 30 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 42 (F) | -9 | -9.3 |
§ 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 | Qureos | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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