§ The result
3 points separate ADP and Cangrade.
ADP (ATS-integrated) edges Cangrade (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. ADP leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cangrade leads 3, including Customer Documentation. ADP takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (ADP 46, Cangrade 35), which is 47% of the weighted advantage ADP holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, ADP 45 to Cangrade 32.
Vendor profile
ADP
ADP is an enterprise human capital management and payroll provider whose recruiting suite uses AI to parse, rank, and match job applicants via its Candidate Relevancy tool, ADP Assist generative-AI assistant/job-description generator, and skills intelligence.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
§ The record
ADP is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Cangrade under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | ADP | Cangrade |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1949 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
ADP 46 · Cangrade 35
2.0 weighted points to ADP
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
ADP 45 · Cangrade 32
1.6 weighted points to ADP
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
ADP 57 · Cangrade 54
0.4 weighted points to ADP
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
ADP 58 · Cangrade 62
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
ADP 28 · Cangrade 30
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
ADP 53 · Cangrade 52
0.2 weighted points to ADP
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
ADP 55 · Cangrade 56
0.1 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is ADP minus Cangrade.
| Category | Weight | ADP | Cangrade | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 53 | 52 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 46 | 35 | +11 | +2.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 32 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 45 (F) | +3 | +3.5 |
§ 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 | ADP | Cangrade | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 3 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
ADP has 23 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 23 for ADP, across 2 distinct source domains, and 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- ADP last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 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