§ The result
Crosschq leads CoderPad by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Crosschq, filed under Screening, finishes on 47 and CoderPad, filed under Assessment, on 42, 5 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Crosschq: Crosschq is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and CoderPad on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CoderPad 20, Crosschq 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage Crosschq 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
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Crosschq under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Crosschq 38
3.2 weighted points to Crosschq
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Crosschq 50
1.0 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Crosschq 58
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Crosschq 62
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Crosschq 40
0.5 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Crosschq 62
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Crosschq 30
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 38 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 47 (F) | -5 | -5.6 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 7 | 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 | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 38 | 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; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 81 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq 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