§ The result
Saville Assessment leads Coderbyte by 6 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Saville Assessment on 48 and Coderbyte on 42, 6 points apart. Coderbyte takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 4 for Saville Assessment, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Coderbyte 20, Saville Assessment 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment 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
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
Coderbyte and Saville Assessment are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Saville Assessment 42
4.0 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · Saville Assessment 50
1.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Saville Assessment 40
1.1 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Saville Assessment 55
0.6 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Saville Assessment 38
0.2 weighted points to Coderbyte
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Saville Assessment 60
0.2 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Saville Assessment 55
0.1 weighted points to Coderbyte
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| 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) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.4 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 6 | 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; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Coderbyte and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment 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