§ The result
Brainner leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Brainner finishes 16 points clear of Cognisess under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 30 — across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Brainner takes all 7 criteria and Cognisess none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Brainner 50 to Cognisess 42. The advantage Brainner holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Brainner 52, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points Brainner gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Cognisess under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Brainner | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2023 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Cognisess 25
5.4 weighted points to Brainner
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Cognisess 20
4.0 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Cognisess 42
1.6 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Cognisess 32
1.6 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Cognisess 20
1.5 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Cognisess 40
1.4 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Cognisess 42
1.0 weighted points to Brainner
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.5 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 +16.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 25 | +27 | +5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 20 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 42 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 32 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 30 (F) | +16 | +16.5 |
§ 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 | Brainner | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner and Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 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