§ The result
CodeSignal leads Arena Analytics on 6 of the 7 criteria.
CodeSignal sits 11 points above Arena Analytics under rubric v1.0 — 43 against 32 — with CodeSignal filed under Assessment and Arena Analytics under Screening. CodeSignal leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Arena Analytics is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 CodeSignal leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Arena Analytics 30 to CodeSignal 38. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (Arena Analytics 38, CodeSignal 62) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Arena Analytics 25, CodeSignal 45), 31% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
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
Arena Analytics is filed under Screening AI, CodeSignal under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arena Analytics | CodeSignal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · CodeSignal 45
3.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · CodeSignal 55
2.0 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · CodeSignal 62
1.9 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · CodeSignal 38
1.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · CodeSignal 50
1.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · CodeSignal 38
1.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus CodeSignal.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | CodeSignal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 45 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 43 (F) | -11 | -11.6 |
§ 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 | Arena Analytics | CodeSignal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 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; some documentation or audit rows for Arena Analytics sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 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