§ The result
3 points separate Cangrade and CoderPad.
Within the Assessment cohort, Cangrade edges CoderPad by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while CoderPad leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cangrade 35, CoderPad 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
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
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
§ The record
Cangrade and CoderPad are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | CoderPad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · CoderPad 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · CoderPad 44
1.4 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · CoderPad 45
1.4 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · CoderPad 58
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · CoderPad 28
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · CoderPad 57
0.1 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 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 +3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus CoderPad.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | CoderPad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 54 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 44 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +3.2 |
§ 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 | CoderPad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 32 | 6 | Sources 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; CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and CoderPad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- CoderPad 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