§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand leads CoderPad by 14 points.
Cornerstone OnDemand, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 14 points above CoderPad, filed under Assessment: 56 against 42 under rubric v1.0. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Cornerstone OnDemand: Cornerstone OnDemand is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and CoderPad on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CoderPad 20, Cornerstone OnDemand 58 — and at an 18% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
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
CoderPad 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 | CoderPad | Cornerstone OnDemand |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 1999 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Cornerstone OnDemand 58
6.8 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Cornerstone OnDemand 72
5.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Cornerstone OnDemand 35
1.1 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.9 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Cornerstone OnDemand 55
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.2 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Cornerstone OnDemand 45
0.1 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.2 — 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 -14.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Cornerstone OnDemand.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Cornerstone OnDemand | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 72 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 58 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 60 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 56 (F) | -14 | -14.2 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; 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 CoderPad and Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad 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