§ The result
RippleMatch leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
RippleMatch, filed under Sourcing, comes out 10 points above Turing, filed under Assessment: 46 against 36 under rubric v1.0. RippleMatch leads every one of the 7 criteria, Turing none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, RippleMatch 27 to Turing 25. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — RippleMatch 53, Turing 28 — and at an 18% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
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
RippleMatch is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | RippleMatch | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
RippleMatch 53 · Turing 28
4.5 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
RippleMatch 57 · Turing 45
1.4 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
RippleMatch 37 · Turing 27
1.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
8% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
RippleMatch 60 · Turing 48
1.0 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
RippleMatch 50 · Turing 44
0.9 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
RippleMatch 46 · Turing 42
0.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
RippleMatch 27 · Turing 25
0.3 weighted points to RippleMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is RippleMatch minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | RippleMatch | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 46 | 42 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 53 | 28 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 25 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 37 | 27 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 36 (F) | +10 | +10.1 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 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; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- RippleMatch 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