§ The result
Cangrade leads Qureos by 12 points.
Cangrade, filed under Assessment, comes out 12 points above Qureos, filed under Screening: 45 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Cangrade leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Qureos leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cangrade 52, Qureos 28, 20% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Cangrade builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2021 |
§ 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 · Qureos 28
4.8 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Qureos 12
4.1 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Qureos 44
1.5 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Qureos 52
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Qureos 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Qureos 35
0.4 weighted points to Qureos
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Qureos 54
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.6 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 +11.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 12 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 33 (F) | +12 | +11.9 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 7 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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