§ The result
Radancy leads Cognisess on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Radancy, filed under Sourcing, comes out 11 points above Cognisess, filed under Assessment: 41 against 30 under rubric v1.0. Cognisess is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Radancy takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Post-Market Monitoring, Cognisess 32 to Radancy 36. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Cognisess 40, Radancy 60) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Cognisess 25, Radancy 42), the second being 31% of the weighted advantage Radancy 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing 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 | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Radancy 42
3.4 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Radancy 58
2.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Radancy 57
1.8 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Radancy 60
1.6 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Radancy 28
1.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Radancy 36
0.5 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 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 -10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 20 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 57 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 36 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 41 (F) | -11 | -10.9 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 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 | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy 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