§ The result
Findem leads CoderPad by 16 points.
Findem finishes 16 points clear of CoderPad under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 42 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Findem, with 1 level: Findem is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and CoderPad on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (CoderPad 20, Findem 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 5 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Findem 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 | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Findem 83
11.3 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Findem 58
2.6 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Findem 38
1.5 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Findem 57
0.4 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Findem 60
0.4 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Findem 42
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -16.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -16.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 83 | -63 | -11.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 42 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 58 (F) | -16 | -16.0 |
§ 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 | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem 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