§ The result
Cangrade leads impress.ai by 7 points.
Cangrade scores 45 and impress.ai 38 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Cangrade leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while impress.ai leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 52, impress.ai 35 — and at a 20% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 5 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, impress.ai under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · impress.ai 35
3.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · impress.ai 22
2.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · impress.ai 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · impress.ai 52
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · impress.ai 58
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · impress.ai 55
0.1 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 35 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 22 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 38 (F) | +7 | +7.1 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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