Proxify vs Turing: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Proxify (4.4/5) edges ahead of Turing (4.1/5) overall. Proxify is the better choice for european companies that want a vetted ML or data engineer on European working hours. Turing is the stronger option for companies that need many remote ML and data engineers quickly and value speed over hand-picked screening. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Proxify vs Turing: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Proxify | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2018 |
| HQ | Stockholm, Sweden | Palo Alto, California, USA |
| Team size | 5,000+ network members | Staff size not published; multi-million talent pool |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Senior-engineer interviews with live coding after an automated skills test | Automated vetting and matching across the largest developer pool on this page |
| Pricing model | Hourly rate per developer billed monthly; full-time or part-time; rates on request | Monthly or hourly per developer; no public rate card; rates on request |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Python, PyTorch, TensorFlow | Python, PyTorch, TensorFlow |
| Industries served | SaaS, Fintech, E-commerce, Media, Healthcare | Technology, AI labs, Finance, Healthcare, Retail |
Proxify vs Turing: overview
Proxify
Proxify was founded in Stockholm in 2018 (one of its own pages says 2019) and matches companies with vetted developers across web, data, AI and DevOps. Candidates take Codility-based skills tests, then sit in-depth technical interviews with Proxify's senior engineers that include live coding and practical problems. The company quotes an acceptance rate of 1–3%, though the figure varies from page to page. Its network covers more than 5,000 professionals in over 90 countries, and it appeared on the Financial Times 1,000 list in 2025. Matching uses in-house AI tools alongside its hiring team.
Turing
Turing was founded in Palo Alto in 2018 and built its developer marketplace on automated vetting. A company executive has said its system evaluated about two million developers and passed more than 50,000 through technical exams and interviews. That machinery makes it fast for common roles. Its business has shifted, though: much of its revenue now comes from producing training data for AI labs, and in 2026 it recruits doctors and accountants for that work alongside engineers. Third-party guides estimate $100 to $200 an hour for mid to senior developers, but Turing publishes no rate card.
Services and capabilities: Proxify vs Turing
| Capability | Proxify | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| ML engineers | ✓ | ✓ |
| LLM / GenAI engineers | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI agent developers | ✗ | ✗ |
| MLOps engineers | ✗ | ✗ |
| Computer vision engineers | ✗ | ✗ |
| NLP engineers | ✗ | ✗ |
| Data engineers | ✓ | ✓ |
| Engineer-led technical screen | ✓ | ✗ |
| Fractional / part-time experts | ✓ | ✗ |
| Trial before commitment | ✗ | ✗ |
| Nearshore time-zone overlap | ✗ | ✗ |
| Direct hire option | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Proxify vs Turing
| Framework / platform | Proxify | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| PyTorch | ✓ | ✓ |
| TensorFlow | ✓ | ✓ |
| LangChain | N/A | ✓ |
| Hugging Face | N/A | N/A |
| OpenAI | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Google Cloud | ✓ | ✓ |
| Databricks | ✓ | N/A |
| Kubernetes | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Proxify vs Turing
| Criterion | Proxify | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated engineer, Fractional expert, Freelance contract | Dedicated engineer, Dedicated team, Freelance contract |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Proxify vs Turing
| Dimension | Proxify | 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 | Adding a data engineer to a European fintech's analytics team, Hiring a Python ML developer for a recommender system | Adding five remote data engineers to a cloud migration, Staffing an LLM evaluation project with many short-term contributors |
| Typical project type | Dedicated engineer | Dedicated engineer |
Proxify vs Turing: pros and cons
| Proxify | |
|---|---|
| + | Live-coding interviews with in-house senior engineers are part of the published process |
| + | Most of the network is in European time zones, which suits teams in the EU and UK |
| + | Grew fast enough to make the Financial Times 1,000 list in 2025 |
| - | AI is one of many skill areas, and there is no AI-specific test on the record |
| - | Acceptance-rate and network-size figures differ across the company's own pages |
| - | Developers are contractors on the platform, not Proxify employees |
| Turing | |
|---|---|
| + | Can match many engineers at once across time zones |
| + | Huge pool makes rare stack combinations easier to find |
| + | Experience supplying engineers to AI labs |
| - | Vetting is mostly automated, with less human technical judgment than engineer-led screens |
| - | Revenue now leans toward AI training data, which may pull attention from staffing clients |
| - | No published rates; third-party estimates are high |
Who should choose Proxify?
A typical fit: adding a data engineer to a European fintech's analytics team.
Senior-engineer interviews with live coding after an automated skills test. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in SaaS, Fintech, E-commerce, Media, Healthcare.
Who should choose Turing?
A typical fit: adding five remote data engineers to a cloud migration.
Automated vetting and matching across the largest developer pool on this page. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Technology, AI labs, Finance, Healthcare, Retail.
Decision matrix: Proxify vs Turing
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want a working engineer, not a recruiter, to run the technical screen | Proxify |
| You need one specialist for a few days a week | Proxify |
| You need several engineers working as one team | Both; Proxify rates higher overall |
| You want to test an engineer before committing | Neither publishes a trial; negotiate a short first term |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Proxify (Not published) vs Turing (Not published) |
| Your team works U.S. hours | Neither lists Latin American engineers; confirm overlap hours in the contract |
| You may want to hire the engineer permanently later | Neither lists direct hire; agree conversion terms up front |
Use case fit: Proxify vs Turing
| Use case | Proxify fit | Turing fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding a data engineer to a European fintech's analytics team | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Hiring a Python ML developer for a recommender system | Strong | Limited | Proxify |
| Adding five remote data engineers to a cloud migration | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Staffing an LLM evaluation project with many short-term contributors | Limited | Strong | Turing |
Verdict: Proxify vs Turing
Proxify (4.4/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Engineer Staffing projects. Senior-engineer interviews with live coding after an automated skills test.
Turing (4.1/5) is worth a look if you need staffing an LLM evaluation project with many short-term contributors. If your situation matches that, Turing is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Proxify vs Turing FAQ
Is Proxify better than Turing?
Proxify (4.4/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Proxify's strongest advantage: live-coding interviews with in-house senior engineers are part of the published process. Turing's strongest advantage: can match many engineers at once across time zones.
How do Proxify and Turing differ in pricing?
Proxify uses hourly rate per developer billed monthly; full-time or part-time; rates on request pricing. Turing uses monthly or hourly per developer; no public rate card; rates on request pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Proxify or Turing?
Proxify is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Proxify and Turing?
Proxify's primary differentiator is: senior-engineer interviews with live coding after an automated skills test. Turing's primary differentiator is: automated vetting and matching across the largest developer pool on this page. They also differ in team size (5,000+ network members vs Staff size not published; multi-million 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 company before making a decision.