§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand leads Aon Assessment on all 7 criteria.
Cornerstone OnDemand finishes 21 points clear of Aon Assessment under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 35 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Cornerstone OnDemand leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Aon Assessment leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Aon Assessment 40, Cornerstone OnDemand 72, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Aon Assessment
Aon Assessment Solutions (formerly cut-e) provides enterprise pre-hire psychometric assessments - ability, personality (ADEPT-15), situational-judgement, gamified cognitive (smartPredict/gridChallenge) tests and an AI-scored video interview tool (vidAssess-AI) - used to screen and rank job applicants at scale.
Vendor profile
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
§ The record
Aon Assessment is filed under Assessment AI, Cornerstone OnDemand under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Aon Assessment | Cornerstone OnDemand |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2002 | 1999 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Aon Assessment 40 · Cornerstone OnDemand 72
6.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Aon Assessment 30 · Cornerstone OnDemand 58
5.0 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Aon Assessment 38 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
3.3 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Aon Assessment 25 · Cornerstone OnDemand 45
2.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Aon Assessment 25 · Cornerstone OnDemand 35
1.5 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Aon Assessment 45 · Cornerstone OnDemand 55
1.2 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Aon Assessment 48 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
1.0 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -20.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -21 beside that -20.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Aon Assessment minus Cornerstone OnDemand.
| Category | Weight | Aon Assessment | Cornerstone OnDemand | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 72 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 58 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 45 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 56 (F) | -21 | -20.8 |
§ 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 | Aon Assessment | Cornerstone OnDemand | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Aon Assessment has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Aon Assessment and Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Aon Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Aon Assessment last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cornerstone OnDemand last reviewed
- June 7, 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.