§ The result
Hireology leads Canditech on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Hireology finishes 18 points clear of Canditech under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 39 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Hireology leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Canditech is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Hireology leads is Human Oversight Design, Canditech 53 to Hireology 57. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Canditech 25, Hireology 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 60% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated 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 | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IL | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Hireology 83
10.4 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Hireology 59
3.2 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Hireology 50
2.6 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Hireology 35
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Hireology 57
0.5 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -17.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -17.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 50 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 83 | -58 | -10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 57 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 59 | -27 | -3.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 57 (F) | -18 | -17.5 |
§ 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 | Canditech | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | 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; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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