§ The result
softgarden leads Turing by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, softgarden, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 42 and Turing, filed under Assessment, on 36, 6 points apart. softgarden leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Turing leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Even Post-Market Monitoring, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (softgarden 44, Turing 27, 12% weight), is only 31% of the weighted advantage softgarden builds across the 5 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
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
softgarden is filed under ATS-integrated 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 | softgarden | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2001 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
softgarden 44 · Turing 27
2.0 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
softgarden 58 · Turing 45
1.6 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
softgarden 54 · Turing 44
1.5 weighted points to softgarden
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
softgarden 22 · Turing 28
1.1 weighted points to Turing
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
softgarden 58 · Turing 48
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
softgarden 30 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is softgarden minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | softgarden | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 28 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 27 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 36 (F) | +6 | +5.6 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- softgarden 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