§ The result
CoderPad leads Cognisess on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, CoderPad and Cognisess come out 42 and 30 under rubric v1.0, 12 points in favour of CoderPad. Cognisess is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: CoderPad takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is FRIA Support, CoderPad 28 to Cognisess 20. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (CoderPad 45, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), is only 34% of the weighted advantage CoderPad builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
CoderPad and Cognisess are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Cognisess 25
4.0 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Cognisess 42
1.8 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Cognisess 42
1.8 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Cognisess 32
1.4 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Cognisess 40
1.4 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Cognisess 20
1.2 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 25 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 20 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 20 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 42 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 32 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 30 (F) | +12 | +11.7 |
§ 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 | CoderPad | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess 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