§ The result
Recruiterflow leads Cognisess by 6 points.
Recruiterflow scores 36 and Cognisess 30 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Recruiterflow: Recruiterflow is ahead on Human Oversight Design and Cognisess on Bias Audit Transparency. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 42, Recruiterflow 58, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 29% of the weighted advantage Recruiterflow 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Cognisess is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Recruiterflow 58
1.9 weighted points to Recruiterflow
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Recruiterflow 33
1.6 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Recruiterflow 30
1.5 weighted points to Recruiterflow
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Recruiterflow 56
1.3 weighted points to Recruiterflow
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Recruiterflow 18
0.4 weighted points to Cognisess
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Recruiterflow 44
0.3 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Recruiterflow 33
0.1 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 18 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 56 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 36 (F) | -6 | -6.4 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 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 | 25 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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