Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Crosschq vs Knockri

Export comparison (CSV)ProBuild another comparison
Vendor profile

Crosschq

Level

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.

47/ 100
F

Substantial gaps

Screening

View profile
Vendor profile

Knockri

Level

Knockri runs asynchronous structured behavioural interviews that candidates answer by audio, video or text; it transcribes the answers, uses NLP models to score the work-related behaviours they describe against a skills framework, and produces per-skill scores and ranked shortlists.

47/ 100
F

Substantial gaps

Video interview

View profile

The result

Crosschq and Knockri tie at 47.

Crosschq (Screening) and Knockri (Video interview) tie at 47 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Crosschq leads 5 of the 7 criteria and Knockri 2, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Knockri (Crosschq 50, Knockri 55), 57% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Customer Documentation, Crosschq 62 to Knockri 55.

Criteria won

7 criteria

  • Crosschq5
  • Knockri2
Widest raw gap
Customer Documentation62 vs 55
Heaviest weighted swing
Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight

Keep this comparison

Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.

Sent once, with links to turn on alerts for either vendor. No list.

The record

Categories, scope and company facts.

Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, Knockri under Video interview AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Assessment.

RecordCrosschqKnockri
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSCA
Founded20182017

What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. Article 11 Technical Documentation

    20% weight24% of the movement so far

    Crosschq50
    Knockri55

    1.0 weighted points to Knockri

  2. FRIA Support

    15% weight42% of the movement so far

    Crosschq30
    Knockri35

    0.8 weighted points to Knockri

  3. Post-Market Monitoring

    12% weight57% of the movement so far

    Crosschq40
    Knockri35

    0.6 weighted points to Crosschq

  4. Customer Documentation

    8% weight70% of the movement so far

    Crosschq62
    Knockri55

    0.6 weighted points to Crosschq

  5. Bias Audit Transparency

    18% weight83% of the movement so far

    Crosschq38
    Knockri35

    0.5 weighted points to Crosschq

  6. Data Governance Disclosure

    15% weight94% of the movement so far

    Crosschq58
    Knockri55

    0.4 weighted points to Crosschq

  7. Human Oversight Design

    12% weight100% of the movement so far

    Crosschq62
    Knockri60

    0.2 weighted points to Crosschq

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.6.

Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Crosschq minus Knockri, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.

CategoryWeightCrosschqKnockriΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5055-5-1.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%3835+3+0.5
FRIA Support15%3035-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5855+3+0.4
Human Oversight Design12%6260+2+0.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%4035+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%6255+7+0.6
Total100%47F47F-+0.6

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.

CriterionWeightCrosschqKnockri
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%61Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain61Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%61Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on a separate domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%70Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain70Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%70Sources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Customer Documentation8%61Sources on the vendor's own domain71Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
All criteria100%385Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain365Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Knockri has 41 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 36 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq and Knockri sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 84 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 41 for Knockri, across 7 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Crosschq last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Knockri 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