§ The result
1 point separates Cangrade and UKG.
Cangrade (Assessment) edges UKG (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 45 to 44. Cangrade leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 3, including FRIA Support. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Cangrade 62, UKG 55) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Cangrade 35, UKG 30), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Cangrade 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, UKG under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 20% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · UKG 30
0.9 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · UKG 48
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · UKG 35
0.8 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · UKG 38
0.7 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · UKG 52
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 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 UKG.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 44 (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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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