§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Cangrade on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 11 points above Cangrade under rubric v1.0, 56 against 45, with both filed under Assessment. Sapia.ai leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Cangrade is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Sapia.ai leads is FRIA Support, Cangrade 30 to Sapia.ai 35. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 6 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Cangrade and Sapia.ai 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 | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Sapia.ai 70
3.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Sapia.ai 52
3.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Sapia.ai 50
2.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Sapia.ai 62
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Sapia.ai 62
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 50 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 56 (F) | -11 | -11.5 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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