§ The result
Cangrade leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Cangrade scores 45 and Turing 36 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Cangrade is ahead of Turing on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at Cangrade 30 to Turing 25. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Cangrade 62, Turing 48) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Cangrade 52, Turing 42), the second being 23% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 7 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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
Cangrade and Turing are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Turing 42
2.0 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Turing 44
1.5 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Turing 45
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Turing 28
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Turing 48
1.1 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Turing 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Turing 27
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.6 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 +8.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 45 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 27 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 36 (F) | +9 | +8.6 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 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 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing last reviewed
- July 17, 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