§ The result
Pinpoint leads Cangrade on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint sits 12 points above Cangrade under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 45 — with Pinpoint filed under ATS-integrated and Cangrade under Assessment. Pinpoint leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cangrade none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Cangrade 62 to Pinpoint 66. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Pinpoint 72, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | JE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Pinpoint 72
4.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Pinpoint 52
2.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Pinpoint 68
2.1 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Pinpoint 42
1.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Pinpoint 38
1.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Pinpoint 64
1.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Pinpoint 66
0.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 72 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 68 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 52 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 57 (F) | -12 | -12.2 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 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 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint last reviewed
- July 17, 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