HomeCompareTalentLens vs Textkernel

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

TalentLens vs Textkernel

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Textkernel leads TalentLens on all 7 criteria.

Under rubric v1.0, Textkernel, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 51 and TalentLens, filed under Assessment, on 46, 5 points apart. Textkernel takes all 7 criteria from TalentLens without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is FRIA Support, TalentLens 30 to Textkernel 32. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (TalentLens 45, Textkernel 55, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Textkernel holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

TalentLens is filed under Assessment AI, Textkernel under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only TalentLens is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordTalentLensTextkernel
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersGBNL
FoundedNot recorded2001

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

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

    Bias Audit Transparency

    TalentLens 45 · Textkernel 55

    1.8 weighted points to Textkernel

  2. 12% weight · 54% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    TalentLens 32 · Textkernel 40

    1.0 weighted points to Textkernel

  3. 15% weight · 69% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    TalentLens 50 · Textkernel 55

    0.8 weighted points to Textkernel

  4. 20% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    TalentLens 52 · Textkernel 55

    0.6 weighted points to Textkernel

  5. 12% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    TalentLens 57 · Textkernel 60

    0.4 weighted points to Textkernel

  6. 8% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    TalentLens 58 · Textkernel 62

    0.3 weighted points to Textkernel

  7. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    TalentLens 30 · Textkernel 32

    0.3 weighted points to Textkernel

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is TalentLens minus Textkernel.

CategoryWeightTalentLensTextkernelΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5255-3-0.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%4555-10-1.8
FRIA Support15%3032-2-0.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%5055-5-0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5760-3-0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3240-8-1.0
Customer Documentation8%5862-4-0.3
Total100%46 (F)51 (F)-5-5.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightTalentLensTextkernel
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11—
Data Governance Disclosure15%40Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%40Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%245Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain135Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
TalentLens last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Textkernel last reviewed
June 7, 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.