§ The result
4 points separate Cangrade and Radancy.
Cangrade (Assessment) edges Radancy (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 41. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 3, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 52% 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 3 secondary categories: Screening, Video interview and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Radancy 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Radancy 42
2.0 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Radancy 58
0.6 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Radancy 36
0.5 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Radancy 28
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Radancy 57
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 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 +4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 36 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 41 (F) | +4 | +4.0 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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