§ The result
Ashby leads Cangrade on all 7 criteria.
Ashby sits 11 points above Cangrade under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 45 — with Ashby filed under ATS-integrated and Cangrade under Assessment. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cangrade none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to Cangrade 62. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Cangrade 35 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Cangrade under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Scheduling and 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 | Ashby | Cangrade |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Cangrade 35
4.9 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Cangrade 52
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Cangrade 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Cangrade 32
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Cangrade 56
0.7 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Cangrade 54
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Cangrade 62
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Cangrade.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Cangrade | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 35 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 45 (F) | +11 | +11.5 |
§ 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 | Ashby | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 3 | — |
| 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | 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% | 2 | 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% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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