§ The result
Knockri leads Paradox by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Knockri, filed under Video interview, finishes on 47 and Paradox, filed under Scheduling, on 41, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Knockri, with 1 level: Knockri is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Paradox on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Knockri 55, Paradox 40, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Knockri holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Knockri
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.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Knockri is filed under Video interview AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Knockri is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Knockri | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | CA | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Knockri 55 · Paradox 40
3.0 weighted points to Knockri
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Knockri 35 · Paradox 50
2.7 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Knockri 35 · Paradox 25
1.5 weighted points to Knockri
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Knockri 55 · Paradox 45
1.5 weighted points to Knockri
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Knockri 60 · Paradox 50
1.2 weighted points to Knockri
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Knockri 55 · Paradox 45
0.8 weighted points to Knockri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.3 — 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 +6 beside that +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Knockri minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Knockri | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 41 (F) | +6 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | Knockri | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 36 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Knockri has 41 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 36 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Knockri and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 41 for Knockri, across 7 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Knockri last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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