§ The result
Cangrade leads micro1 on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Cangrade, filed under Assessment, finishes on 45 and micro1, filed under Screening, on 36, 9 points apart. Cangrade takes all 7 criteria from micro1 without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Cangrade 52 to micro1 50. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Cangrade 62, micro1 45) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Cangrade 35, micro1 20), the second being 31% 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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, micro1 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 | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · micro1 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · micro1 45
1.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · micro1 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · micro1 22
1.2 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · micro1 48
1.0 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · micro1 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · micro1 50
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 22 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 36 (F) | +9 | +8.8 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | 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 | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 8 | 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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