§ The result
Wonderlic takes the total, Canditech takes more of the criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, Wonderlic edges Canditech by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 43 to 39. Canditech leads more of the criteria than Wonderlic — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Wonderlic leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Wonderlic. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Canditech 25, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 57% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Canditech and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IL | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Wonderlic 48
4.1 weighted points to Wonderlic
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Wonderlic 52
3.0 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Wonderlic 38
2.1 weighted points to Canditech
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Wonderlic 25
0.8 weighted points to Canditech
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Wonderlic 55
0.2 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Wonderlic 52
0.1 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Wonderlic 33
0.1 weighted points to Wonderlic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 52 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 48 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 52 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 43 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| 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 | 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 | 9 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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