§ The result
Oleeo takes the total, Canditech takes more of the criteria.
Oleeo (ATS-integrated) edges Canditech (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 40 to 39. Canditech leads more of the criteria than Oleeo — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Oleeo leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Oleeo. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Canditech 25, Oleeo 40 — and at an 18% weight it carries 76% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 3 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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Oleeo 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 | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IL | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1995 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Oleeo 40
2.7 weighted points to Oleeo
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Oleeo 45
1.1 weighted points to Canditech
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Oleeo 25
0.8 weighted points to Canditech
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Oleeo 40
0.6 weighted points to Oleeo
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Oleeo 55
0.2 weighted points to Oleeo
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Oleeo 30
0.2 weighted points to Canditech
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Oleeo 55
0.2 weighted points to Canditech
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.3 — 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 -1 beside that -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 40 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 40 (F) | -1 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo last reviewed
- June 7, 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