§ The result
Sense leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Sense (Screening) and Cognisess (Assessment) are 28 points apart under rubric v1.0, 58 for Sense against 30 for Cognisess. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and Sense is ahead on 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. The advantage Sense holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cognisess 20, Sense 72, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points Sense 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Sense under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Sense 72
9.4 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Sense 60
7.0 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Sense 38
2.7 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Sense 64
2.6 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Sense 58
2.4 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Sense 52
2.4 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Sense 62
1.8 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -28.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 28.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -28 beside that -28.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 60 | -35 | -7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 72 | -52 | -9.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 38 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 64 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 52 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 58 (F) | -28 | -28.3 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense last reviewed
- June 7, 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