HomeCompareSeekOut vs Turing

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

SeekOut vs Turing

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

2 points separate Turing and SeekOut.

Turing (Assessment) edges SeekOut (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 36 to 34. Turing leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while SeekOut leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — SeekOut takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, SeekOut 40 to Turing 28, 100% of the weighted advantage SeekOut holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Customer Documentation, SeekOut 35 to Turing 48.

§ The record

SeekOut 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, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Turing is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordSeekOutTuring
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20172018

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 35% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    SeekOut 40 · Turing 28

    2.2 weighted points to SeekOut

  2. 20% weight · 58% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    SeekOut 35 · Turing 42

    1.4 weighted points to Turing

  3. 15% weight · 79% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    SeekOut 35 · Turing 44

    1.3 weighted points to Turing

  4. 8% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    SeekOut 35 · Turing 48

    1.0 weighted points to Turing

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

    Post-Market Monitoring

    SeekOut 25 · Turing 27

    0.2 weighted points to Turing

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.9.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is SeekOut minus Turing.

CategoryWeightSeekOutTuringΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3542-7-1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%4028+12+2.2
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%3544-9-1.3
Human Oversight Design12%4545--
Post-Market Monitoring12%2527-2-0.2
Customer Documentation8%3548-13-1.0
Total100%34 (F)36 (F)-2-1.9

§ 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.

CriterionWeightSeekOutTuring
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%10Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%0101
Customer Documentation8%10Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%54Sources on the vendor's own domain87Sources on the vendor's own domain

SeekOut has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 5 with a source URL, 4 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 23 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 9 for SeekOut, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
SeekOut last reviewed
May 21, 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.