§ The result
TalentLens takes the total, softgarden takes more of the criteria.
TalentLens (Assessment) edges softgarden (ATS-integrated) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. softgarden leads more of the criteria than TalentLens — 3 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which TalentLens leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to TalentLens. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (softgarden 22, TalentLens 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 67% of the weighted advantage TalentLens holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
Vendor profile
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
softgarden is filed under ATS-integrated AI, TalentLens under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only TalentLens is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | softgarden | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2001 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
softgarden 22 · TalentLens 45
4.1 weighted points to TalentLens
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
softgarden 42 · TalentLens 52
2.0 weighted points to TalentLens
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
softgarden 44 · TalentLens 32
1.4 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
softgarden 54 · TalentLens 50
0.6 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
softgarden 58 · TalentLens 57
0.1 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is softgarden minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | softgarden | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 45 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 32 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | softgarden | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 24 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens last reviewed
- September 25, 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