§ The result
Cangrade leads HireLogic on all 7 criteria.
Cangrade sits 11 points above HireLogic under rubric v1.0 — 45 against 34 — with Cangrade filed under Assessment and HireLogic under Video interview. Cangrade takes all 7 criteria and HireLogic none of them; the nearest contest is Post-Market Monitoring, Cangrade 32 to HireLogic 28. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 35, HireLogic 15, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Cangrade 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
HireLogic
HireLogic joins phone, video and in-person interviews to transcribe them and generate AI notes, job-description coverage, candidate insights and flags for potentially discriminatory interviewer questions, and also offers an asynchronous AI interview agent that scores candidates on relevance and depth of knowledge.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, HireLogic under Video interview AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | HireLogic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · HireLogic 15
3.6 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · HireLogic 42
2.0 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · HireLogic 45
1.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · HireLogic 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · HireLogic 48
1.0 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · HireLogic 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · HireLogic 28
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +10.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus HireLogic.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | HireLogic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 15 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 34 (F) | +11 | +10.5 |
§ 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 | HireLogic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 3 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 23 | 6 | 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; HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HireLogic last reviewed
- September 25, 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