§ The result
4 points separate Oracle Recruiting and Cangrade.
Oracle Recruiting (ATS-integrated) edges Cangrade (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 45. Oracle Recruiting leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Cangrade leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Oracle Recruiting 60, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Oracle Recruiting 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
Oracle Recruiting
Oracle Recruiting (part of Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM, formerly Oracle Recruiting Cloud) is an enterprise applicant tracking system whose embedded AI suggests and ranks candidates, finds similar candidates, and generates 0-5 generative-AI match ratings against job requisitions to assist recruiters.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Oracle Recruiting 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 | Oracle Recruiting |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1977 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Oracle Recruiting 60
1.6 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
12% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Oracle Recruiting 40
1.0 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Oracle Recruiting 30
0.9 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Oracle Recruiting 60
0.9 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Oracle Recruiting 35
0.8 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Oracle Recruiting 60
0.5 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Oracle Recruiting.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Oracle Recruiting | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 60 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 49 (F) | -4 | -3.8 |
§ 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 | Oracle Recruiting | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 4 | 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; Oracle Recruiting has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 4 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 Oracle Recruiting, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oracle Recruiting 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