§ The result
HiPeople leads Canditech on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 22 points clear of Canditech inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 39 (F). HiPeople leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Canditech leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Canditech 25, HiPeople 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 7 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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Canditech and HiPeople 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 | Canditech | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IL | DE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · HiPeople 84
10.6 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · HiPeople 62
5.0 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · HiPeople 60
3.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · HiPeople 62
1.1 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · HiPeople 58
0.9 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · HiPeople 35
0.8 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · HiPeople 66
0.6 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -22 beside that -22.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 62 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 84 | -59 | -10.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 62 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 60 | -28 | -3.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 66 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 61 (D) | -22 | -22.3 |
§ 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 | Canditech | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople 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: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople 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