§ The result
Cangrade leads Intervue.io on all 7 criteria.
Cangrade sits 14 points above Intervue.io under rubric v1.0 — 45 against 31 — with Cangrade filed under Assessment and Intervue.io under Video interview. Cangrade takes all 7 criteria and Intervue.io none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Cangrade 56 to Intervue.io 54. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cangrade 52, Intervue.io 28, 20% weight), is only 34% of the weighted advantage Cangrade builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Intervue.io 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 | Intervue.io |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2014 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Intervue.io 28
4.8 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Intervue.io 12
4.1 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Intervue.io 38
2.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Intervue.io 22
1.2 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Intervue.io 50
1.0 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Intervue.io 54
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Intervue.io 30
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Intervue.io.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Intervue.io | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 12 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 22 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 38 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 31 (F) | +14 | +14.0 |
§ 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 | Intervue.io | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 5 | 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 30 | 7 | Sources 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; Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Intervue.io 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