Index.dev vs Turing: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Index.dev (4.5/5) edges ahead of Turing (4.0/5) overall. Index.dev is the better choice for startups that want their money back if the first month doesn't work. Turing is the stronger option for several remote AI engineers matched quickly. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Index.dev vs Turing: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Index.dev | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2019 | 2018 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | Palo Alto, California, USA |
| Team size | 30,000+ network | Large global talent pool |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A refundable 30-day trial on every placement, plus direct hire | Automated matching across a very large developer pool |
| Pricing model | Monthly rate per engineer; direct-hire fee; 30-day refundable trial; rates on request | Monthly or hourly per developer; no public rate card; about $100–$200/hr (third-party estimate) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Python, PyTorch, LangChain | Python, PyTorch, TensorFlow |
| Industries served | SaaS, Fintech, E-commerce, AI labs, Healthcare | Technology, AI labs, Finance, Healthcare, Retail |
Index.dev vs Turing: overview
Index.dev
Index.dev, legally Index Soft Limited, is a London talent platform that its job ads date to 2019. Its buying terms are the clearest of any network here: every placement carries a 30-day trial with a full refund if the match fails. You can contract one engineer, build a dedicated offshore team or hire someone directly. The main pool of more than 30,000 engineers sits in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe, and a separate AI unit supplies Master's and PhD-level people for fine-tuning and retrieval work. Vetting runs through five stages with human reviewers.
Turing
Turing, founded in Palo Alto in 2018, sells remote developers matched by an automated vetting system that a company executive says has assessed about two million people. Buyers can take engineers monthly or hourly, and matching is quick. On pricing, though, Turing gives buyers little to work with: there is no public rate card, and third-party guides estimate $100 to $200 an hour for mid to senior developers. Much of its growth now comes from training-data work for AI labs.
Services and capabilities: Index.dev vs Turing
| Capability | Index.dev | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Full-time dedicated engineers | ✓ | ✓ |
| Part-time / fractional experts | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team | ✓ | ✓ |
| Trial before commitment | ✓ | ✗ |
| Published rates | ✗ | ✗ |
| Direct hire option | ✓ | ✗ |
| Subscription or output-based pricing | ✗ | ✗ |
| Nearshore time-zone overlap | ✓ | ✗ |
| LLM / GenAI engineers | ✓ | ✓ |
| MLOps | ✗ | ✗ |
| Computer vision | ✗ | ✗ |
| Data engineering | ✗ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Index.dev vs Turing
| Framework / platform | Index.dev | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| PyTorch | ✓ | ✓ |
| TensorFlow | N/A | ✓ |
| LangChain | ✓ | N/A |
| Hugging Face | ✓ | N/A |
| OpenAI | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | N/A | ✓ |
| Google Cloud | ✓ | ✓ |
| Databricks | N/A | N/A |
| Kubernetes | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Index.dev vs Turing
| Criterion | Index.dev | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Full-time dedicated, Dedicated team, Direct hire, Trial period | Full-time dedicated, Dedicated team, Freelance contract |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Index.dev vs Turing
| Dimension | Index.dev | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | SaaS, Fintech, E-commerce | Technology, AI labs, Finance |
| Best use cases | Trialling a Latin American LLM engineer for a month, Hiring a PhD-level specialist to fine-tune a model | Adding four remote ML engineers in a month, Staffing a short LLM evaluation project |
| Typical project type | Full-time dedicated | Full-time dedicated |
Index.dev vs Turing: pros and cons
| Index.dev | |
|---|---|
| + | A full refund in the first 30 days lowers the cost of a bad match |
| + | Contract and direct-hire routes from one provider |
| + | Talent in both U.S.-friendly and European time zones |
| - | Engineers are network members, not employees |
| - | Acceptance-rate figures are the company's own |
| - | No published monthly rates |
| Turing | |
|---|---|
| + | Fast matching for common AI roles |
| + | Very large pool |
| + | Both single engineers and teams |
| - | No rate card |
| - | Vetting is largely automated |
| - | Focus has shifted toward AI-lab data work |
Who should choose Index.dev?
A typical fit: trialling a Latin American LLM engineer for a month.
A refundable 30-day trial on every placement, plus direct hire. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in SaaS, Fintech, E-commerce, AI labs, Healthcare.
Who should choose Turing?
A typical fit: adding four remote ML engineers in a month.
Automated matching across a very large developer pool. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Technology, AI labs, Finance, Healthcare, Retail.
Decision matrix: Index.dev vs Turing
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want one engineer full-time on a monthly contract | Both; Index.dev rates higher overall |
| You only need a specialist a few days a week | Neither advertises part-time experts; ask about reduced hours |
| You want to test an engineer before committing | Index.dev |
| You need a rate before the first call | Neither publishes rates; ask both for a written rate card |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Index.dev (Not published) vs Turing (Not published) |
| You may want to hire the engineer permanently later | Index.dev |
| You want several engineers working as one team | Neither lists dedicated teams; check team size before signing |
Use case fit: Index.dev vs Turing
| Use case | Index.dev fit | Turing fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trialling a Latin American LLM engineer for a month | Strong | Limited | Index.dev |
| Hiring a PhD-level specialist to fine-tune a model | Strong | Limited | Index.dev |
| Adding four remote ML engineers in a month | Limited | Strong | Turing |
| Staffing a short LLM evaluation project | Limited | Strong | Turing |
Verdict: Index.dev vs Turing
Index.dev (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Staff Augmentation projects. A refundable 30-day trial on every placement, plus direct hire.
Turing (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need staffing a short LLM evaluation project. If your situation matches that, Turing is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Index.dev vs Turing FAQ
Is Index.dev better than Turing?
Index.dev (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Index.dev's strongest advantage: a full refund in the first 30 days lowers the cost of a bad match. Turing's strongest advantage: fast matching for common AI roles.
How do Index.dev and Turing differ in pricing?
Index.dev uses monthly rate per engineer; direct-hire fee; 30-day refundable trial; rates on request pricing. Turing uses monthly or hourly per developer; no public rate card; about $100–$200/hr (third-party estimate) pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Index.dev or Turing?
Index.dev is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each provider before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Index.dev and Turing?
Index.dev's primary differentiator is: a refundable 30-day trial on every placement, plus direct hire. Turing's primary differentiator is: automated matching across a very large developer pool. They also differ in team size (30,000+ network vs Large global talent pool), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (SaaS, Fintech vs Technology, AI labs).
Verify all details directly with each provider before making a decision.