§ The result
CoderPad leads AmazingHiring by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, CoderPad, filed under Assessment, finishes on 42 and AmazingHiring, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 5 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of CoderPad: CoderPad is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and AmazingHiring on Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (AmazingHiring 33, CoderPad 44) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (AmazingHiring 35, CoderPad 45), the second being 36% of the weighted advantage CoderPad holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
Vendor profile
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, CoderPad under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only CoderPad is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | CoderPad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · CoderPad 45
2.0 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · CoderPad 44
1.3 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · CoderPad 57
1.1 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · CoderPad 54
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · CoderPad 58
0.5 weighted points to CoderPad
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · CoderPad 20
0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · CoderPad 28
0.3 weighted points to AmazingHiring
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus CoderPad.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | CoderPad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 20 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 44 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 42 (F) | -5 | -4.8 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | CoderPad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- CoderPad 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