§ The result
3 points separate Sova Assessment and Cangrade.
Within the Assessment cohort, Sova Assessment edges Cangrade by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. Sova Assessment leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Cangrade leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 30, Sova Assessment 40 — and at a 15% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment 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
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Cangrade and Sova Assessment are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and 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 | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 37% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Sova Assessment 40
1.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Sova Assessment 40
1.0 weighted points to Sova Assessment
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Sova Assessment 55
0.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
18% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Sova Assessment 38
0.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Sova Assessment 52
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Sova Assessment 55
0.1 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 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 -3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -3.2 |
§ 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 | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 4 | 2 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 8 | 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; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment 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