§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand leads Crosschq by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Cornerstone OnDemand, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 56 and Crosschq, filed under Screening, on 47, 9 points apart. Crosschq takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Cornerstone OnDemand, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cornerstone OnDemand 72, Crosschq 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
Cornerstone OnDemand is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Crosschq under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Assessment.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cornerstone OnDemand | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1999 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cornerstone OnDemand 72 · Crosschq 50
4.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cornerstone OnDemand 58 · Crosschq 38
3.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cornerstone OnDemand 55 · Crosschq 62
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cornerstone OnDemand 35 · Crosschq 30
0.8 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cornerstone OnDemand 45 · Crosschq 40
0.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Crosschq 58
0.3 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Crosschq 62
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cornerstone OnDemand minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | Cornerstone OnDemand | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 72 | 50 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 47 (F) | +9 | +8.7 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cornerstone OnDemand and Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cornerstone OnDemand last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 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