§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads Coderbyte on all 7 criteria.
LinkedIn Recruiter finishes 15 points clear of Coderbyte under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 42 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Of the 7 criteria Coderbyte wins none, and the narrowest lead LinkedIn Recruiter holds is on FRIA Support, Coderbyte 33 to LinkedIn Recruiter 38. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Coderbyte 20, LinkedIn Recruiter 50, 18% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter builds across the 7 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
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
§ The record
Coderbyte is filed under Assessment AI, LinkedIn Recruiter under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Coderbyte is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
5.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
4.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
0.9 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
0.7 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 67 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 50 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 38 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 66 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 57 (F) | -15 | -14.4 |
§ 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 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; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Coderbyte and LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- LinkedIn Recruiter last reviewed
- September 25, 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