§ The result
Equalture leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Assessment entries Equalture and Cognisess at 44 and 30, a gap of 14 points. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and Equalture is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 25, Equalture 45, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 28% of the weighted advantage Equalture holds across the 7 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
Equalture
Equalture is a game-based pre-employment assessment platform whose short browser games measure candidates' cognitive abilities and behavioural tendencies and convert them into a Fit Score ranked against an employer-specific "Success Profile" derived from that employer's own top performers.
§ The record
Cognisess and Equalture are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Equalture |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | NL |
| Founded | 2011 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Equalture 45
4.0 weighted points to Equalture
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Equalture 40
3.6 weighted points to Equalture
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Equalture 55
1.9 weighted points to Equalture
8% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Equalture 60
1.6 weighted points to Equalture
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Equalture 30
1.5 weighted points to Equalture
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Equalture 50
1.0 weighted points to Equalture
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Equalture 38
0.7 weighted points to Equalture
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Equalture.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Equalture | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 45 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 40 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 44 (F) | -14 | -14.3 |
§ 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 | Equalture | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 26 for Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Equalture 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