§ The result
Cangrade leads AmazingHiring by 8 points.
Cangrade scores 45 and AmazingHiring 37 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Cangrade leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while AmazingHiring leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 35, Cangrade 52 — and at a 20% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
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
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Cangrade under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Cangrade is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Cangrade |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Cangrade 52
3.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Cangrade 35
2.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Cangrade 56
1.0 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Cangrade 62
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Cangrade 54
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Cangrade 32
0.1 weighted points to AmazingHiring
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Cangrade.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Cangrade | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 32 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 45 (F) | -8 | -8.0 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | 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% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring 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