§ The result
Findem leads Cangrade by 13 points.
Findem sits 13 points above Cangrade under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 45 — with Findem filed under Sourcing and Cangrade under Assessment. Findem leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cangrade leads 1, including Customer Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Findem 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 66% of the weighted advantage Findem 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Findem under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
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 | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Findem 83
8.6 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Findem 58
1.2 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Findem 38
1.2 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Findem 42
1.2 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Findem 60
0.5 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Findem 57
0.4 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Findem 58
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 83 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 58 (F) | -13 | -12.8 |
§ 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 | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem 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