§ The result
Greenhouse leads Cangrade on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse finishes 22 points clear of Cangrade under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 45 (F) — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Cangrade leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Greenhouse 86 — and at an 18% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse 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
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Greenhouse 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 | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Greenhouse 86
9.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Greenhouse 78
5.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Greenhouse 58
3.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Greenhouse 42
1.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Greenhouse 64
1.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Greenhouse 66
1.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Greenhouse 64
0.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -22 beside that -22.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Greenhouse.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Greenhouse | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 78 | -26 | -5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 86 | -51 | -9.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 64 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 66 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 58 | -26 | -3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 67 (D) | -22 | -22.2 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 16 | 1 | 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; Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Greenhouse 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 Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Greenhouse 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