Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Talogy vs Tengai
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
Talogy and Tengai tie at 42.
Talogy, filed under Assessment, and Tengai, filed under Screening, tie at 42 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Talogy leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Tengai 4, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Talogy 53, Tengai 45 — and at a 20% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Talogy holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Talogy3
- Tengai4
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation53 vs 45
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Talogy is filed under Assessment AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Talogy | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 1946 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight40% of the movement so far
Talogy53Tengai451.6 weighted points to Talogy
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight58% of the movement so far
Talogy52Tengai580.7 weighted points to Tengai
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight72% of the movement so far
Talogy30Tengai330.5 weighted points to Tengai
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight83% of the movement so far
Talogy25Tengai280.4 weighted points to Tengai
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight91% of the movement so far
Talogy52Tengai500.3 weighted points to Talogy
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
Talogy58Tengai550.2 weighted points to Talogy
- 7
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Talogy32Tengai330.1 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Talogy minus Tengai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Talogy | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 53 | 45 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42F | 42F | - | +0.3 |
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 | Talogy | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 2 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 37 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Talogy last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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.