§ The result
Workable leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Workable finishes 18 points clear of Cognisess under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 30 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Workable leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 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, Workable 55, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Workable 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Cognisess is filed under Assessment AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2012 |
§ 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 · Workable 55
6.0 weighted points to Workable
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Workable 42
4.0 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Workable 58
2.4 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Workable 62
2.4 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Workable 56
1.3 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Workable 42
1.2 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -18.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 55 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 56 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 48 (F) | -18 | -18.0 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | 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 | Sources 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess and Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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