§ The result
Textkernel leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Textkernel (Sourcing) opens a 21-point lead on Cognisess (Assessment), 51 to 30. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and Textkernel is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. The advantage Textkernel holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cognisess 20, Textkernel 55, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 30% of the weighted points Textkernel 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Textkernel under Candidate sourcing 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 | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | NL |
| Founded | 2011 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Textkernel 55
6.3 weighted points to Textkernel
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Textkernel 55
6.0 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Textkernel 60
2.2 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Textkernel 55
1.9 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Textkernel 32
1.8 weighted points to Textkernel
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Textkernel 62
1.8 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Textkernel 40
1.0 weighted points to Textkernel
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -20.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -21 beside that -20.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 55 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 55 | -35 | -6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 32 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 51 (F) | -21 | -20.9 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 5 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 5 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 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel 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