§ The result
Feenyx leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, Feenyx and Cognisess come out 40 and 30 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Feenyx. Feenyx is ahead of Cognisess on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at Cognisess 20 to Feenyx 25. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 25, Feenyx 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Feenyx 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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Cognisess and Feenyx are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Feenyx 42
3.4 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Feenyx 58
1.9 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Feenyx 50
1.2 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Feenyx 55
1.2 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Feenyx 25
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Feenyx 25
0.8 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Feenyx 38
0.7 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 40 (F) | -10 | -10.1 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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 | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 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 | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and Feenyx 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: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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