§ The result
CoderPad and Draup tie at 42.
CoderPad, filed under Assessment, and Draup, filed under Sourcing, tie at 42 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. CoderPad leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Draup 3, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Draup takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (CoderPad 20, Draup 33), which is 76% of the weighted advantage Draup holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, CoderPad 44 to Draup 28.
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
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing 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 CoderPad is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Draup 33
2.3 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Draup 28
1.9 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Draup 48
0.6 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Draup 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Draup 58
0.1 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Draup 57
0.1 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 33 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 54 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 28 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 42 (F) | - | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 23 | 7 | 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; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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