Turing
HireAIScore rates Turing 36 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed July 17, 2026. Turing ranks 75 of 82 vendors rated in Assessment AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 14 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Turing — 8 with a cited source, 7 recording that nothing was located.
Score breakdown
Turing, criterion by criterion
Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.
Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20% · category avg 50
42
+8.4
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18% · category avg 41
28
+5.0
FRIA Support
Weight 15% · category avg 31
25
+3.8
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15% · category avg 53
44
+6.6
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12% · category avg 55
45
+5.4
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12% · category avg 38
27
+3.2
Customer Documentation
Weight 8% · category avg 58
48
+3.8
Total weighted score
36.3(rounded to 36 for display)
Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 82 Assessment AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.
Strongest criterion
Customer Documentation
48raw / 100
Contributes 3.8 to the total. 48 against a 58 category average.
Weakest criterion
FRIA Support
25raw / 100
Contributes 3.8 to the total. 25 against a 31 category average.
Cited evidence
The evidence behind the score
Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.
Download diligence recordEvidence ledger
- Items
- 14
- Documentation
- 6
- Public statement
- 1
- Absence
- 7
- With a source URL
- 8 of 14
- Source hostnames
- 1
- Fewest items
- 1
- FRIA Support
These figures measure how thoroughly Turing was reviewed, not how Turing performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
3 items42
- DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026
Turing's own blog describes the vetting/matching models it uses (gradient boosting, decision trees, logistic regression, and machine-learned ranking to predict job success).
https://www.turing.com/blog/turing-uses-ai-for-matching-and-evaluating-developers
- DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026
A company blog outlines a system of 100+ automated assessments and continuously-updating validated-skill developer profiles, but gives no model card or explainability detail.
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
No model/system card, explainability statement, AI policy, or ISO 42001 documentation was found; the homepage footer links only to Privacy and Terms, and /trust and /security both return HTTP 404.
Bias Audit Transparency
2 items28
- Public statementCaptured Jul 17, 2026
Turing asserts that an applicant's 'age, gender, and race have no bearing on the score,' but provides no auditor, methodology, date, or disparate-impact figures to substantiate it.
https://www.turing.com/blog/turing-uses-ai-for-matching-and-evaluating-developers
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
No NYC Local Law 144 bias-audit summary or independent third-party audit for Turing's vetting/matching tool was found on turing.com or in web searches.
FRIA Support
1 item25
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
No FRIA template, EU AI Act Art. 27 deployer guidance, or high-risk-AI deployer obligation material was found on turing.com (its EU/UK content is limited to a GDPR privacy supplement).
Data Governance Disclosure
2 items44
- DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026
Turing's privacy policy discloses collection of assessment data, use of personal data to develop/train AI models, automated decision-making and profiling, GDPR lawful bases and retention, and states DPAs govern customer data.
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
Turing publishes no platform security page or SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / ISO 42001 certification; /security and /trust 404, and the cybersecurity page is a consulting service Turing sells, not evidence of its own certifications.
Human Oversight Design
2 items45
- DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026
The privacy policy states processing will not result in a decision based solely on automated processing with legal or similarly significant effect unless necessary for a contract, consented to, or permitted by law.
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
No in-product explainability, candidate override/appeal control, per-jurisdiction configuration, or audit-log capability is described; the standard vetting funnel is fully automated with no live human technical review before a profile reaches the client.
Post-Market Monitoring
1 item27
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
No public status page, security.txt/vulnerability-disclosure policy, model-update changelog, or monitoring dashboard was found; the homepage footer surfaces only Contact and Help Center, and the only named contact in the Terms is a DMCA/copyright email.
Customer Documentation
3 items48
- DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026
Public Terms of Service include a 'Fair Assessment Policy' governing vetting-challenge integrity and disclose that challenge participation is recorded and shared with clients for matching.
- DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026
Turing maintains an extensive public documentation surface (hire/product pages, Help Center, Talent Resources, Research, Blog) linked from the site, alongside its privacy policy.
- AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026
No deployer/compliance guidance, published DPA, NYC Local Law 144 candidate/employer guidance, or EU AI Act material was found for the vetting/matching product.
Editorial notes
Company overview
Turing (Turing Enterprises, Inc.), founded in 2018 by Jonathan Siddharth and co-founders and headquartered in Palo Alto, California, is a venture-backed talent platform (Series E, ~$2.2B valuation) that maintains a global pool of several million developers and serves enterprise clients such as Dell, Disney, and Volvo. Its hiring product runs a four-stage, largely automated vetting funnel (experience survey, MCQ quiz, coding challenge, AI matching) and applies machine-learned models - gradient boosting, decision trees, and logistic regression - to predict a candidate's probability of success and rank them for client roles. The company has more recently expanded into AI-training and expert-evaluation ('AGI') services, but its developer vetting-and-matching engine remains the AI-hiring-relevant product.
Regulatory exposure
Turing's automated vetting and ranking substantially determines which candidates advance to employers, so it functions as an Automated Employment Decision Tool under NYC Local Law 144 and as a high-risk employment AI system under the EU AI Act; because Turing both builds the tool and supplies the vetted candidates, it straddles the developer and employment-agency roles, plausibly triggering LL 144 bias-audit and candidate-notice duties for NYC hiring and Art. 27 FRIA / transparency obligations for EU deployers. Despite this exposure, Turing publishes no independent bias audit, no FRIA or deployer guidance, no model/system card, and no AEDT-specific candidate notice; its GDPR-supplemented privacy policy and a generic automated-decision-making safeguard are the only governance-adjacent disclosures found.
Path to a higher score
Turing could raise its score by commissioning and publicly posting an independent LL 144 bias audit (named auditor, date, downloadable summary with impact ratios), releasing a model or system card plus an explainability statement for its vetting and ranking models, standing up a security/trust page evidencing SOC 2 and ISO 27001 (and ideally ISO 42001) for the platform itself rather than its consulting arm, publishing EU AI Act deployer and Art. 27 FRIA guidance alongside NYC candidate-notice templates, and adding a public status page, security-disclosure channel, and model-update changelog for post-market monitoring.
Regulatory frame
What applies to assessment AI.
Assessment is the most-regulated surface in AI hiring. NYC LL 144, EEOC and OFCCP frameworks, Illinois HB 3773, and EU AI Act Annex III §4 all apply, with overlap on bias-audit obligations.
Compare
Turing against its nearest-scoring peers.
The closest scores in Assessment AI, side by side.
- Side-by-sideTuring vs TestDome37F
- Side-by-sideTuring vs Toggl Hire37F
- Side-by-sideTuring vs micro136F
- Side-by-sideTuring vs Aon Assessment35F
Ranking
Others rated in Assessment AI
Ranked 75 of 82 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.
- #72impress.ai38F
- #73TestDome37F
- #74Toggl Hire37F
- #75TuringThis profile36F
- #76micro136F
- #77Aon Assessment35F
Conflicts of interest
No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.
Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.