§ The result
2 points separate Ashby and Codility.
Ashby (ATS-integrated) edges Codility (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 54. Ashby leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Codility leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Codility 45 — and at an 18% weight it carries 80% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 3 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
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Codility 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 Codility is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Codility |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Codility 45
3.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Codility 50
1.0 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Codility 60
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Codility 66
0.2 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Codility 57
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +2.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Codility.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Codility | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 66 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 54 (F) | +2 | +2.6 |
§ 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 | Ashby | Codility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | 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 | 16 | 4 | 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; 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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