§ The result
Harver leads CoderPad by 14 points.
Harver sits 14 points above CoderPad under rubric v1.0, 56 against 42, with both filed under Assessment. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Harver: Harver 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, Harver 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 5 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
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
CoderPad and Harver are both filed under Assessment 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 | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Harver 80
10.8 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Harver 65
4.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Harver 35
1.1 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Harver 50
0.8 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Harver 40
0.5 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Harver 60
0.2 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Harver 55
0.1 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.5 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 -14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 65 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 80 | -60 | -10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 56 (F) | -14 | -14.8 |
§ 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 | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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