§ The result
Cangrade leads Alooba by 7 points.
Cangrade finishes 7 points ahead of Alooba under rubric v1.0, 45 to 38, both scored as Assessment entries. Cangrade leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Alooba leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Alooba 22, Cangrade 35) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Alooba 40, Cangrade 52), 35% of the weighted advantage Cangrade builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
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
Alooba and Cangrade are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Cangrade |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Cangrade 52
2.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Cangrade 35
2.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Cangrade 54
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Cangrade 32
0.5 weighted points to Alooba
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Cangrade 62
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Cangrade 30
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 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 -6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Cangrade.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Cangrade | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 54 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 32 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 45 (F) | -7 | -6.3 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Cangrade | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 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% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 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 Alooba and Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 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