§ The result
Ashby leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Ashby (ATS-integrated) and Cognisess (Assessment): 56 for Ashby, 30 for Cognisess. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Cognisess leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Ashby 62, Cognisess 20) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Ashby 63, Cognisess 25), 29% of the weighted advantage Ashby builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Cognisess under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Cognisess 25
7.6 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Cognisess 20
7.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Cognisess 20
3.3 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Cognisess 42
2.4 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Cognisess 42
2.4 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Cognisess 40
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Cognisess 32
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +26.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +26 beside that +26.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 25 | +38 | +7.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 20 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 40 | +23 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 30 (F) | +26 | +26.3 |
§ 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 | Ashby | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | 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; 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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