§ The result
Ashby leads CodeSignal on all 7 criteria.
Ashby sits 13 points above CodeSignal under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 43 — with Ashby filed under ATS-integrated and CodeSignal under Assessment. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, CodeSignal none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to CodeSignal 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 63, CodeSignal 38, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, CodeSignal under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only CodeSignal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | CodeSignal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · CodeSignal 38
5.0 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · CodeSignal 45
3.1 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · CodeSignal 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · CodeSignal 50
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · CodeSignal 55
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · CodeSignal 38
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · CodeSignal 62
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus CodeSignal.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | CodeSignal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 38 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 43 (F) | +13 | +13.2 |
§ 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 | Ashby | CodeSignal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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