§ The result
Codility leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
The Assessment cohort pairing of Codility and Alooba comes out 54 to 38 under rubric v1.0, a 16-point lead for Codility. Codility leads every one of the 7 criteria, Alooba none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Alooba 55 to Codility 62. The advantage Codility holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 22, Codility 45, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 27% of the weighted points Codility gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
Codility
Codility is a technical/coding assessment platform that screens and interviews software engineers with work-sample coding tests, live technical interviews, and integrity tooling including plagiarism and AI-use detection.
§ The record
Alooba and Codility are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Codility |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | High |
| Headquarters | AU | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Codility 45
4.1 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Codility 60
4.0 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Codility 42
2.1 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Codility 57
1.8 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Codility 50
1.7 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Codility 62
0.8 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Codility 66
0.6 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -15.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Codility.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Codility | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 45 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 50 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 66 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 54 (F) | -16 | -15.2 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Codility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 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