§ The result
Pinpoint leads Canditech on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint finishes 18 points clear of Canditech under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 39 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Pinpoint leads every one of the 7 criteria, Canditech none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Canditech 30 to Pinpoint 38. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Canditech 37, Pinpoint 72, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IL | JE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Pinpoint 72
7.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Pinpoint 42
3.1 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Pinpoint 68
2.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Pinpoint 52
2.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Pinpoint 64
1.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Pinpoint 38
1.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Pinpoint 66
0.6 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.0 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 -18.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 72 | -35 | -7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 68 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 64 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 52 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 66 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 57 (F) | -18 | -18.0 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint last reviewed
- July 17, 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