Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Cangrade vs Clevry
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Clevry
Clevry is a UK psychometric assessment platform offering norm-referenced personality questionnaires, cognitive ability tests and situational judgement tests, plus recorded one-way video interviews, an interview builder, a skills-first ATS and an AI tool that maps job ads onto its personality scale library.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Cangrade and Clevry tie at 45.
Cangrade and Clevry, both in the Assessment cohort, tie at 45 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Cangrade leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Clevry 3, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Clevry 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Clevry holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Cangrade2
- Clevry3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 38
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Cangrade and Clevry are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Cangrade | Clevry |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1991 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight41% of the movement so far
Cangrade35Clevry380.5 weighted points to Clevry
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight59% of the movement so far
Cangrade56Clevry580.2 weighted points to Clevry
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight77% of the movement so far
Cangrade32Clevry300.2 weighted points to Cangrade
- 4
Customer Documentation
8% weight89% of the movement so far
Cangrade62Clevry600.2 weighted points to Cangrade
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Cangrade54Clevry550.1 weighted points to Clevry
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 1.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Clevry, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Clevry | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 45F | - | -0.5 |
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 | Clevry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 39 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Clevry has 44 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 39 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Clevry sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 44 for Clevry, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Clevry last reviewed
- September 25, 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
Scored against