§ The result
Criteria leads Cangrade by 8 points.
Criteria scores 53 and Cangrade 45 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Criteria leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Cangrade leads 1, including Customer Documentation, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Criteria 68, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Criteria holds across the 5 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
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
§ The record
Cangrade and Criteria 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 | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Criteria 68
3.2 weighted points to Criteria
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Criteria 48
2.3 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Criteria 62
1.2 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Criteria 42
1.2 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Criteria 32
0.3 weighted points to Criteria
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Criteria 60
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Criteria.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Criteria | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 68 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 53 (F) | -8 | -8.1 |
§ 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 | Criteria | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 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 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 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