§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand leads Coderbyte by 14 points.
Cornerstone OnDemand sits 14 points above Coderbyte under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Cornerstone OnDemand filed under ATS-integrated and Coderbyte under Assessment. Coderbyte takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Cornerstone OnDemand, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Coderbyte 20, Cornerstone OnDemand 58) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
Vendor profile
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
§ The record
Coderbyte is filed under Assessment AI, Cornerstone OnDemand under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | Cornerstone OnDemand |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 1999 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Cornerstone OnDemand 58
6.8 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · Cornerstone OnDemand 72
5.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Cornerstone OnDemand 55
0.6 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Cornerstone OnDemand 45
0.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Cornerstone OnDemand 35
0.3 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.2 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Cornerstone OnDemand.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Cornerstone OnDemand | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 72 | -28 | -5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 58 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 45 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 56 (F) | -14 | -13.5 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | Cornerstone OnDemand | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Coderbyte and Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cornerstone OnDemand 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