§ The result
Codility leads Cangrade on all 7 criteria.
Codility scores 54 and Cangrade 45 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Codility is ahead of Cangrade on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Data Governance Disclosure at Cangrade 54 to Codility 57. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 32, Codility 50, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 24% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade and Codility are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Codility |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Codility 50
2.2 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Codility 45
1.8 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Codility 42
1.8 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Codility 60
1.6 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Codility 62
0.7 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Codility 57
0.4 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Codility 66
0.3 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Codility.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Codility | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 50 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 54 (F) | -9 | -8.8 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Codility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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