HomeCompareQureos vs Turing

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Qureos vs Turing

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Turing takes the total, Qureos takes more of the criteria.

Turing holds a 3-point edge over Qureos under rubric v1.0, 36 to 33, across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Qureos leads more of the criteria, 3 against 2 for Turing, yet Turing takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Qureos 12, Turing 28 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Turing holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordQureosTuring
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersAEUS
Founded20212018

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 36% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Qureos 12 · Turing 28

    2.9 weighted points to Turing

  2. 20% weight · 71% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Qureos 28 · Turing 42

    2.8 weighted points to Turing

  3. 12% weight · 84% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Qureos 54 · Turing 45

    1.1 weighted points to Qureos

  4. 12% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Qureos 35 · Turing 27

    1.0 weighted points to Qureos

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

    Customer Documentation

    Qureos 52 · Turing 48

    0.3 weighted points to Qureos

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -3.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.3.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Qureos minus Turing.

CategoryWeightQureosTuringΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2842-14-2.8
Bias Audit Transparency18%1228-16-2.9
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4444--
Human Oversight Design12%5445+9+1.1
Post-Market Monitoring12%3527+8+1.0
Customer Documentation8%5248+4+0.3
Total100%33 (F)36 (F)-3-3.3

§ 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.

CriterionWeightQureosTuring
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources 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 domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain01—
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%287Sources on the vendor's own domain87Sources on the vendor's own domain

Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Qureos last reviewed
September 25, 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.