§ The result
Cangrade leads Entelo by 12 points.
Cangrade sits 12 points above Entelo under rubric v1.0 — 45 against 33 — with Cangrade filed under Assessment and Entelo under Sourcing. Cangrade leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Entelo leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Entelo 30, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% 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
Entelo
Entelo is an AI-powered talent sourcing and diversity-recruiting platform that aggregates hundreds of millions of public candidate profiles and applies predictive machine-learning models to score, rank, and surface (including underrepresented) candidates for recruiters.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Entelo under Candidate sourcing 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 | Entelo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Entelo 30
4.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Entelo 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Entelo 40
1.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Entelo 42
1.7 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Entelo 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Entelo 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Entelo 35
0.4 weighted points to Entelo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 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 +12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Entelo.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Entelo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 42 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 33 (F) | +12 | +12.3 |
§ 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 | Entelo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 8 | 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; Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 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 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Entelo, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Entelo 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