§ The result
Recruiterflow and Turing tie at 36.
Recruiterflow, filed under ATS-integrated, and Turing, filed under Assessment, tie at 36 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Recruiterflow leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Turing 2, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Turing takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Recruiterflow 33, Turing 42), which is 50% of the weighted advantage Turing holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, Recruiterflow 58 to Turing 45.
Vendor profile
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
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
Recruiterflow is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Turing is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Recruiterflow | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruiterflow 33 · Turing 42
1.8 weighted points to Turing
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruiterflow 18 · Turing 28
1.8 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Recruiterflow 58 · Turing 45
1.6 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Recruiterflow 30 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Recruiterflow 33 · Turing 27
0.7 weighted points to Recruiterflow
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Recruiterflow 56 · Turing 48
0.6 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruiterflow minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Recruiterflow | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 28 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 44 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 27 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 36 (F) | - | +0.1 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 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 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruiterflow 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.
§ Where next