§ The result
Paradox takes the total, Canditech takes more of the criteria.
Paradox (Scheduling) edges Canditech (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 41 to 39. Canditech leads more of the criteria than Paradox — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Paradox leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Paradox. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Canditech 25, Paradox 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage Paradox 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IL | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Paradox 50
4.5 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Paradox 45
1.1 weighted points to Canditech
8% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Paradox 45
1.0 weighted points to Canditech
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Paradox 25
0.8 weighted points to Canditech
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Paradox 40
0.6 weighted points to Paradox
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Paradox 50
0.4 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Paradox 35
0.4 weighted points to Paradox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 40 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 50 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 41 (F) | -2 | -2.3 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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