§ The result
Cangrade leads Cognisess on 6 of the 7 criteria.
The Assessment cohort pairing of Cangrade and Cognisess comes out 45 to 30 under rubric v1.0, a 15-point lead for Cangrade. Cangrade leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Cognisess is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Cangrade leads is FRIA Support, Cangrade 30 to Cognisess 20. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Cangrade 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
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Cangrade and Cognisess 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 | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Cognisess 25
5.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Cognisess 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Cognisess 42
1.8 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Cognisess 40
1.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Cognisess 42
1.7 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Cognisess 20
1.5 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 25 | +27 | +5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 42 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 42 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 30 (F) | +15 | +14.8 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 21 | 5 | 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; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess 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