HomeCompareTuring vs Willo

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Turing vs Willo

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Willo leads Turing by 5 points.

Willo scores 41 and Turing 36 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Video interview and Assessment cohorts. Willo leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Human Oversight Design, while Turing leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Turing 45, Willo 62, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Willo holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Turing is filed under Assessment AI, Willo under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordTuringWillo
Price tierEnterpriseLow
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20182018

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 12% weight · 33% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Turing 45 · Willo 62

    2.0 weighted points to Willo

  2. 15% weight · 55% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Turing 44 · Willo 53

    1.3 weighted points to Willo

  3. 12% weight · 73% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Turing 27 · Willo 36

    1.1 weighted points to Willo

  4. 20% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Turing 42 · Willo 38

    0.8 weighted points to Turing

  5. 8% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Turing 48 · Willo 54

    0.5 weighted points to Willo

  6. 18% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Turing 28 · Willo 30

    0.4 weighted points to Willo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 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 -4.5.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Turing minus Willo.

CategoryWeightTuringWilloΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4238+4+0.8
Bias Audit Transparency18%2830-2-0.4
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4453-9-1.3
Human Oversight Design12%4562-17-2.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%2736-9-1.1
Customer Documentation8%4854-6-0.5
Total100%36 (F)41 (F)-5-4.5

§ 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.

CriterionWeightTuringWillo
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%0111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%87Sources on the vendor's own domain95Sources on the vendor's own domain

Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Turing last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Willo 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.