§ The result
Checkr leads Cangrade on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Checkr scores 54 and Cangrade 45 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Checkr leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Cangrade is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Checkr leads is FRIA Support, Cangrade 30 to Checkr 32. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 52, Checkr 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Checkr under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Checkr 70
3.6 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Checkr 50
2.2 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Checkr 62
1.2 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Checkr 66
1.2 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Checkr 68
0.5 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Checkr 32
0.3 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Checkr.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 66 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 50 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 68 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 54 (F) | -9 | -8.9 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 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