§ The result
Paradox leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Paradox sits 11 points above Cognisess under rubric v1.0 — 41 against 30 — with Paradox filed under Scheduling and Cognisess under Assessment. Paradox leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cognisess none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Cognisess 42 to Paradox 45. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cognisess 20, Paradox 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Paradox 50
5.4 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Paradox 40
3.0 weighted points to Paradox
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Paradox 50
1.0 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Paradox 25
0.8 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Paradox 45
0.4 weighted points to Paradox
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Paradox 45
0.4 weighted points to Paradox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Paradox 35
0.4 weighted points to Paradox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 50 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 45 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 41 (F) | -11 | -11.3 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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