§ The result
2 points separate CoderPad and Feenyx.
Within the Assessment cohort, CoderPad edges Feenyx by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 40. CoderPad leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Feenyx leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Feenyx takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (CoderPad 20, Feenyx 25), 88% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Post-Market Monitoring, CoderPad 44 to Feenyx 38.
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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
CoderPad and Feenyx 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 | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Feenyx 25
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Feenyx 38
0.7 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Feenyx 42
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Feenyx 50
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Feenyx 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Feenyx 55
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Feenyx 58
0.1 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 40 (F) | +2 | +1.6 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 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 | 30 | 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; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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