§ The result
Cangrade takes the total, Coderbyte takes more of the criteria.
Cangrade holds a 3-point edge over Coderbyte under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Coderbyte leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Cangrade, yet Cangrade takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Coderbyte 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 3 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
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
§ The record
Cangrade and Coderbyte are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Coderbyte |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Coderbyte 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Coderbyte 44
1.6 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Coderbyte 40
1.0 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Coderbyte 60
0.5 weighted points to Coderbyte
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Coderbyte 33
0.4 weighted points to Coderbyte
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Coderbyte 58
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Coderbyte 56
0.3 weighted points to Coderbyte
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Coderbyte.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Coderbyte | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +2.4 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 26 | 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; Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Coderbyte sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Coderbyte 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