§ The result
Gem leads Cangrade on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Gem sits 10 points above Cangrade under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 45 — with Gem filed under Sourcing and Cangrade under Assessment. Gem leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Cangrade is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Gem leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Cangrade 54 to Gem 57. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Gem 66 — and at an 18% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Gem 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
Gem
Gem is an AI-first recruiting platform combining a talent CRM, AI sourcing and outreach automation, candidate engagement, and a newer applicant tracking system with AI-powered application review and ranking.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Gem 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 | Gem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Gem 66
5.6 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Gem 47
1.8 weighted points to Gem
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Gem 58
1.2 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Gem 35
0.8 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Gem 61
0.6 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Gem 57
0.4 weighted points to Gem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Gem.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Gem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 66 | -31 | -5.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 61 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 47 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 55 (F) | -10 | -10.4 |
§ 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 | Gem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 19 | 2 | 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; Gem has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Gem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 21 for Gem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Gem 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