§ The result
Dayforce leads Cangrade on all 7 criteria.
Dayforce sits 12 points above Cangrade under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 45 — with Dayforce filed under ATS-integrated and Cangrade under Assessment. Dayforce leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cangrade none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Cangrade 35 to Dayforce 42. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Dayforce 74, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Dayforce holds across the 7 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
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Dayforce under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Dayforce |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1992 |
§ 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 · Dayforce 74
4.4 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Dayforce 47
1.8 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Dayforce 40
1.5 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Dayforce 68
1.4 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Dayforce 63
1.3 weighted points to Dayforce
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Dayforce 42
1.3 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Dayforce 70
0.6 weighted points to Dayforce
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Dayforce.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Dayforce | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 74 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 63 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 68 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 47 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 57 (F) | -12 | -12.4 |
§ 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 | Dayforce | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 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 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dayforce last reviewed
- August 2, 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