§ The result
3 points separate Workable and Cangrade.
Workable (ATS-integrated) edges Cangrade (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. Workable leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cangrade leads 2, including FRIA Support. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Cangrade 32, Workable 42) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Cangrade 35, Workable 42), the second being 29% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 5 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Workable 42
1.3 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Workable 42
1.2 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Workable 62
0.7 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Workable 55
0.6 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Workable 58
0.6 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Workable 56
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 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 -3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -3.1 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 12 | 6 | 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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