§ The result
3 points separate Cangrade and Humanly.
Cangrade (Assessment) edges Humanly (Screening) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Humanly leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 54, Humanly 40 — and at a 15% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 4 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
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Humanly under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Humanly |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Humanly 40
2.1 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Humanly 45
1.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Humanly 40
0.9 weighted points to Humanly
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Humanly 52
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Humanly 35
0.8 weighted points to Humanly
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Humanly 58
0.2 weighted points to Humanly
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Humanly 30
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Humanly.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Humanly | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 40 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +2.7 |
§ 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 | Humanly | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 12 | 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; Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Humanly 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