HomeCompareTalentLens vs Workday Recruiting AI

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

TalentLens vs Workday Recruiting AI

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Workday Recruiting AI leads TalentLens on all 7 criteria.

Workday Recruiting AI sits 10 points above TalentLens under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 46 — with Workday Recruiting AI filed under ATS-integrated and TalentLens under Assessment. Workday Recruiting AI is ahead of TalentLens on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Post-Market Monitoring at TalentLens 32 to Workday Recruiting AI 35. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (TalentLens 52, Workday Recruiting AI 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

TalentLens is filed under Assessment AI, Workday Recruiting AI under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordTalentLensWorkday Recruiting AI
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersGBUS
FoundedNot recorded2005

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 37% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    TalentLens 52 · Workday Recruiting AI 70

    3.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

  2. 18% weight · 65% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    TalentLens 45 · Workday Recruiting AI 60

    2.7 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

  3. 12% weight · 75% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    TalentLens 57 · Workday Recruiting AI 65

    1.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

  4. 15% weight · 83% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    TalentLens 30 · Workday Recruiting AI 35

    0.8 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

  5. 15% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    TalentLens 50 · Workday Recruiting AI 55

    0.8 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

  6. 8% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    TalentLens 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 65

    0.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

  7. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    TalentLens 32 · Workday Recruiting AI 35

    0.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.7 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 -9.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is TalentLens minus Workday Recruiting AI.

CategoryWeightTalentLensWorkday Recruiting AIΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5270-18-3.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%4560-15-2.7
FRIA Support15%3035-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5055-5-0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5765-8-1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%3235-3-0.4
Customer Documentation8%5865-7-0.6
Total100%46 (F)56 (F)-10-9.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightTalentLensWorkday Recruiting AI
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain10Audit 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 domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%40Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain01—
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%245Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain92Audit 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
TalentLens last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
May 21, 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.