§ The result
Checkr leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Checkr (Screening) opens a 24-point lead on Cognisess (Assessment), 54 to 30. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and Checkr is ahead on 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Checkr 70, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Checkr builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Cognisess under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Checkr | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Cognisess 25
9.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Cognisess 42
3.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Cognisess 42
2.9 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Cognisess 20
2.7 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Cognisess 40
2.2 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Cognisess 32
2.2 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Cognisess 20
1.8 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +23.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +24 beside that +23.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 25 | +45 | +9.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 20 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 42 | +24 | +2.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 32 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 40 | +28 | +2.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 30 (F) | +24 | +23.8 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess 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