§ The result
3 points separate Draup and Canditech.
Draup (Sourcing) edges Canditech (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 39. Draup leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Canditech leads 3, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Canditech 37, Draup 48 — and at a 20% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Draup holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Canditech
Canditech is a skills-assessment and job-simulation platform that screens candidates with work-sample tests, technical and soft-skill assessments, and one-way video interviews, using AI agents to auto-score open-text and video responses.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Canditech is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Canditech | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IL | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Draup 48
2.2 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Draup 33
1.4 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Draup 25
0.8 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Draup 58
0.6 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Draup 28
0.5 weighted points to Canditech
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Draup 54
0.3 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Draup 57
0.1 weighted points to Canditech
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 48 | -11 | -2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 42 (F) | -3 | -3.2 |
§ 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 | Canditech | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup 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: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup 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