§ The result
1 point separates TalentLens and Cangrade.
Within the Assessment cohort, TalentLens edges Cangrade by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. Cangrade and TalentLens each lead 2 of the 7 criteria, with 3 level, though the side of the split TalentLens holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cangrade 35, TalentLens 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 94% of the weighted advantage TalentLens holds across the 2 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
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
Cangrade and TalentLens 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 | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · TalentLens 45
1.8 weighted points to TalentLens
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · TalentLens 50
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · TalentLens 58
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · TalentLens 57
0.1 weighted points to TalentLens
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -1.0 |
§ 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 | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 24 | 5 | 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; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens 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