§ The result
Paycom leads Coderbyte by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Paycom, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 50 and Coderbyte, filed under Assessment, on 42, 8 points apart. Paycom leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Coderbyte leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Coderbyte 44, Paycom 68 — and at a 20% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
Coderbyte is filed under Assessment AI, Paycom under ATS-integrated 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 | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · Paycom 68
4.8 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Paycom 38
3.2 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Paycom 62
0.9 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Paycom 55
0.6 weighted points to Coderbyte
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Paycom 30
0.4 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Paycom 38
0.2 weighted points to Coderbyte
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 68 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 38 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 50 (F) | -8 | -7.8 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources 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 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Coderbyte 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 Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom 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