§ The result
UKG leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
UKG sits 14 points above Cognisess under rubric v1.0 — 44 against 30 — with UKG filed under ATS-integrated and Cognisess under Assessment. UKG leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cognisess none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Cognisess 32 to UKG 38. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 25, UKG 48, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage UKG 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · UKG 48
4.6 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 49% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · UKG 35
2.3 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · UKG 56
2.1 weighted points to UKG
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · UKG 30
1.8 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · UKG 52
1.2 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · UKG 55
1.2 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · UKG 38
0.7 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 48 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 35 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 56 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 44 (F) | -14 | -13.9 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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