§ The result
Codility leads Arctic Shores on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Codility scores 54 and Arctic Shores 46 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Codility leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Arctic Shores is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Codility leads is Customer Documentation, Arctic Shores 64 to Codility 66. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 30, Codility 50, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 6 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
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
Arctic Shores 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 | Arctic Shores | Codility |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Codility 50
2.4 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Codility 60
2.0 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Codility 45
1.8 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Codility 42
1.1 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Codility 62
0.7 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Codility 66
0.2 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Codility.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Codility | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 66 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -8.1 |
§ 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 | Codility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | 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 | 16 | 4 | 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; Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 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 Codility, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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