§ The result
3 points separate Cangrade and Tengai.
Cangrade (Assessment) edges Tengai (Screening) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42. Tengai takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Cangrade, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Cangrade 52, Tengai 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 43% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 5 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: 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 | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Tengai 45
1.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Tengai 50
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Tengai 55
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Tengai 33
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Tengai 28
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Tengai 58
0.2 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Tengai 33
0.1 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.6 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 +2.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +2.9 |
§ 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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 37 | 5 | Sources 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; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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