§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Cognisess by 16 points.
Arctic Shores finishes 16 points clear of Cognisess inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 46 against 30. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Arctic Shores: Arctic Shores is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Cognisess on Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Arctic Shores and Cognisess 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 | Arctic Shores | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Cognisess 25
5.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Cognisess 20
2.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Cognisess 20
2.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Cognisess 42
2.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Cognisess 40
1.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Cognisess 42
1.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Cognisess 32
0.2 weighted points to Cognisess
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 25 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 42 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 40 | +24 | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 30 (F) | +16 | +15.6 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 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