§ The result
3 points separate The Predictive Index and Cangrade.
Within the Assessment cohort, The Predictive Index edges Cangrade by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. The Predictive Index leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cangrade leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. The Predictive Index takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Cangrade 35, The Predictive Index 45), which is 45% of the weighted advantage The Predictive Index holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Cangrade 32 to The Predictive Index 43.
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
The Predictive Index
The Predictive Index provides validated behavioral and cognitive psychometric assessments used to screen, hire, and develop employees and design teams, alongside AI-assisted talent-management software.
§ The record
Cangrade and The Predictive Index are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | The Predictive Index |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1955 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · The Predictive Index 45
1.8 weighted points to The Predictive Index
12% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · The Predictive Index 43
1.3 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · The Predictive Index 35
0.8 weighted points to The Predictive Index
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · The Predictive Index 52
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · The Predictive Index 50
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · The Predictive Index 60
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · The Predictive Index 55
0.1 weighted points to The Predictive Index
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus The Predictive Index.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | The Predictive Index | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 43 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -3.0 |
§ 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 | The Predictive Index | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 1 | 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 | 18 | 6 | 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; The Predictive Index has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 24 for The Predictive Index, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- The Predictive Index 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