§ The result
HiPeople leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople and Cognisess, both Assessment entries, are 31 points apart under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) for HiPeople against 30 (F) for Cognisess. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and HiPeople is ahead on 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. The advantage HiPeople holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cognisess 20, HiPeople 84, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points HiPeople gains 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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Cognisess and HiPeople 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 | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 2011 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · HiPeople 84
11.5 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · HiPeople 62
7.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · HiPeople 60
3.4 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · HiPeople 58
2.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · HiPeople 62
2.4 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · HiPeople 35
2.3 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · HiPeople 66
2.1 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -31.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 31.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -31 beside that -31.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 62 | -37 | -7.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 84 | -64 | -11.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 35 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 60 | -28 | -3.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 66 | -26 | -2.1 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 61 (D) | -31 | -31.4 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople 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