§ The result
Wonderlic leads Turing by 7 points.
Wonderlic scores 43 and Turing 36 under rubric v1.0 — a 7-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Wonderlic leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Turing leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Turing 28, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Turing and Wonderlic are both filed under Assessment 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.
| Record | Turing | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Turing 28 · Wonderlic 48
3.6 weighted points to Wonderlic
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Turing 42 · Wonderlic 52
2.0 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Turing 44 · Wonderlic 38
0.9 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Turing 45 · Wonderlic 52
0.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Turing 27 · Wonderlic 33
0.7 weighted points to Wonderlic
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Turing 48 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to Wonderlic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Turing minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Turing | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 48 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 27 | 33 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 43 (F) | -7 | -6.8 |
§ 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 | Turing | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Turing last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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.
§ Where next