§ The result
Cangrade leads Pillar by 5 points.
Cangrade scores 45 and Pillar 40 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Pillar leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Cangrade 62, Pillar 50) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Cangrade 52, Pillar 42), the second being 38% 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
Pillar
Pillar (now "AI Interview Companion by Employ") is an interview intelligence platform that records and transcribes job interviews, generates AI interview guides and highlight clips, and surfaces candidate insights and interviewer-coaching recommendations.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Pillar under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Pillar |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2019 |
§ 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 · Pillar 42
2.0 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Pillar 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Pillar 48
1.0 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Pillar 50
1.0 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Pillar 38
0.5 weighted points to Pillar
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Pillar 33
0.1 weighted points to Pillar
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 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 +4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Pillar.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Pillar | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 40 (F) | +5 | +4.6 |
§ 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 | Pillar | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 12 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Pillar has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Pillar, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pillar 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