§ The result
Draup leads Cognisess by 12 points.
Draup, filed under Sourcing, comes out 12 points above Cognisess, filed under Assessment: 42 against 30 under rubric v1.0. Draup leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Cognisess leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 25, Draup 48, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Draup holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Draup 48
4.6 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Draup 33
2.3 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Draup 58
1.9 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Draup 54
1.8 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Draup 57
1.4 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Draup 25
0.8 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Draup 28
0.5 weighted points to Cognisess
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 48 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 33 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 54 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 57 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 42 (F) | -12 | -12.3 |
§ 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 | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 23 | 7 | 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; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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