§ The result
Workable leads Turing on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Workable sits 12 points above Turing under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 36 — with Workable filed under ATS-integrated and Turing under Assessment. Workable leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Turing is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Workable leads is Customer Documentation, Turing 48 to Workable 56. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Human Oversight Design (Turing 45, Workable 62) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Turing 42, Workable 55), the second being 22% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 6 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Turing is filed under Assessment AI, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Turing | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Turing 42 · Workable 55
2.6 weighted points to Workable
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Turing 28 · Workable 42
2.5 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Turing 44 · Workable 58
2.1 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Turing 45 · Workable 62
2.0 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Turing 27 · Workable 42
1.8 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Turing 48 · Workable 56
0.6 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Turing minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Turing | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 27 | 42 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 48 (F) | -12 | -11.7 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Turing | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Turing last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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