Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Checkr vs Codility
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
Substantial gaps
Screening
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Checkr and Codility tie at 54.
Checkr (Screening) and Codility (Assessment) tie at 54 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Checkr leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Codility 2, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Checkr 70, Codility 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Checkr4
- Codility2
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation70 vs 60
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Codility under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Codility is in scope of
| Record | Checkr | Codility |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2009 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight30% of the movement so far
Checkr70Codility602.0 weighted points to Checkr
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight57% of the movement so far
Checkr35Codility451.8 weighted points to Codility
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight79% of the movement so far
Checkr32Codility421.5 weighted points to Codility
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight90% of the movement so far
Checkr62Codility570.8 weighted points to Checkr
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight98% of the movement so far
Checkr66Codility620.5 weighted points to Checkr
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Checkr68Codility660.2 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Codility, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Codility | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 60 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 66 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54F | 54F | - | +0.1 |
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 | Checkr | Codility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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.