§ The result
3 points separate Arctic Shores and CodeSignal.
Within the Assessment cohort, Arctic Shores edges CodeSignal by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43. Arctic Shores leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 50, CodeSignal 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
§ The record
Arctic Shores and CodeSignal 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 | Arctic Shores | CodeSignal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · CodeSignal 38
2.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · CodeSignal 45
1.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · CodeSignal 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · CodeSignal 50
1.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · CodeSignal 38
1.0 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · CodeSignal 62
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · CodeSignal 55
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus CodeSignal.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | CodeSignal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 43 (F) | +3 | +2.5 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | CodeSignal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 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