§ The result
Cangrade leads Oleeo by 5 points.
Cangrade scores 45 and Oleeo 40 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Cangrade leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Oleeo leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 52, Oleeo 40 — and at a 20% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 6 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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Oleeo under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1995 |
§ 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 · Oleeo 40
2.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Oleeo 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Oleeo 40
0.9 weighted points to Oleeo
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Oleeo 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Oleeo 55
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Oleeo 30
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Oleeo 55
0.1 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 40 (F) | +5 | +4.5 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 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 | 10 | 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; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 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 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo 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