§ The result
Cangrade leads Recruiterflow by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Cangrade, filed under Assessment, finishes on 45 and Recruiterflow, filed under ATS-integrated, on 36, 9 points apart. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Recruiterflow leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 52, Recruiterflow 33 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Recruiterflow 33
3.8 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Recruiterflow 18
3.1 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Recruiterflow 44
1.5 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Recruiterflow 56
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Recruiterflow 58
0.2 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Recruiterflow 33
0.1 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 18 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 36 (F) | +9 | +8.5 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | 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 | 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 | 25 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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