§ The result
Rippling leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Rippling (ATS-integrated) and Cognisess (Assessment): 56 for Rippling, 30 for Cognisess. Rippling leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Cognisess leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 25, Rippling 73, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 36% of the weighted advantage Rippling 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Rippling 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 | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Rippling 73
9.6 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Rippling 42
4.0 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Rippling 45
3.8 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Rippling 64
3.3 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Rippling 60
2.2 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Rippling 64
1.9 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Rippling 47
1.8 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -26.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -26 beside that -26.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 73 | -48 | -9.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 45 | -25 | -3.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 64 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 47 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 64 | -24 | -1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 56 (F) | -26 | -26.5 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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