§ The result
3 points separate Cangrade and Mercer | Mettl.
Within the Assessment cohort, Cangrade edges Mercer | Mettl by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Mercer | Mettl leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 52, Mercer | Mettl 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 54% 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
Mercer | Mettl
Mercer | Mettl is an online talent assessment and remote-proctoring platform offering psychometric, aptitude, coding, and skills tests plus AI-assisted exam proctoring and scoring for hiring, certification, and L&D.
§ The record
Cangrade and Mercer | Mettl are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and 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 | Mercer | Mettl |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2014 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Mercer | Mettl 38
2.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Mercer | Mettl 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Mercer | Mettl 42
1.3 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Mercer | Mettl 52
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Mercer | Mettl 38
0.7 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Mercer | Mettl 28
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Mercer | Mettl 55
0.1 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 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 +3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Mercer | Mettl.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Mercer | Mettl | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 45 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +3.1 |
§ 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 | Mercer | Mettl | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 5 | 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; Mercer | Mettl has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Mercer | Mettl, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Mercer | Mettl 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