§ The result
Cangrade leads Workstream by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Cangrade, filed under Assessment, finishes on 45 and Workstream, filed under Screening, on 39, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Cangrade: Cangrade is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Workstream on Human Oversight Design. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cangrade 35, Workstream 20, 18% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Cangrade builds 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Workstream 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Workstream 40
2.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Workstream 47
1.1 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Workstream 61
0.6 weighted points to Workstream
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Workstream 56
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Workstream 27
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Workstream 35
0.4 weighted points to Workstream
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 27 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 47 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 61 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 39 (F) | +6 | +6.1 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 28 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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