§ The result
Crosschq leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Crosschq (Screening) opens a 17-point lead on Cognisess (Assessment), 47 to 30. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and Crosschq is ahead on 3 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 (Cognisess 25, Crosschq 50, 20% weight), is only 29% of the weighted advantage Crosschq builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Crosschq under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Crosschq 50
5.0 weighted points to Crosschq
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Crosschq 38
3.2 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Crosschq 58
2.4 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Crosschq 62
2.4 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Crosschq 62
1.8 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Crosschq 30
1.5 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Crosschq 40
1.0 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -17.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -17.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 38 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 47 (F) | -17 | -17.3 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 6 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq 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