HomeCompareQureos vs Talview

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Qureos vs Talview

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Talview leads Qureos by 9 points.

Talview scores 42 and Qureos 33 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Video interview and Screening cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 1 in favour of Talview, with 2 level: Talview is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Qureos on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Qureos 12, Talview 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Talview holds across the 4 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Talview under Video interview 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.

RecordQureosTalview
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersAEUS
Founded20212012

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 46% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Qureos 12 · Talview 38

    4.7 weighted points to Talview

  2. 20% weight · 89% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Qureos 28 · Talview 50

    4.4 weighted points to Talview

  3. 15% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Qureos 44 · Talview 48

    0.6 weighted points to Talview

  4. 12% weight · 99% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Qureos 35 · Talview 32

    0.4 weighted points to Qureos

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Qureos 54 · Talview 55

    0.1 weighted points to Talview

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -9.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 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 -9.4.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Qureos minus Talview.

CategoryWeightQureosTalviewΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2850-22-4.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%1238-26-4.7
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4448-4-0.6
Human Oversight Design12%5455-1-0.1
Post-Market Monitoring12%3532+3+0.4
Customer Documentation8%5252--
Total100%33 (F)42 (F)-9-9.4

§ 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.

CriterionWeightQureosTalview
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%61Sources on the vendor's own domain11—
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01—
Data Governance Disclosure15%61Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%287Sources on the vendor's own domain116Sources on the vendor's own domain

Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Talview has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Talview, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Qureos last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Talview last reviewed
June 7, 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.