§ The result
CoderPad leads JobDiva on all 7 criteria.
CoderPad sits 13 points above JobDiva under rubric v1.0 — 42 against 29 — with CoderPad filed under Assessment and JobDiva under ATS-integrated. CoderPad is ahead of JobDiva on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at CoderPad 20 to JobDiva 15. The advantage CoderPad holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (CoderPad 45, JobDiva 28, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 27% of the weighted points CoderPad gains across the 7 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
JobDiva
JobDiva is an all-in-one ATS, CRM, onboarding, back-office and VMS-synchronization platform for staffing agencies, with AI features including DivaMatch candidate-to-job scoring, AI-enhanced matching and semantic search, resume harvesting and generative outreach.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, JobDiva under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only CoderPad is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | JobDiva |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2003 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · JobDiva 28
3.4 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · JobDiva 38
2.4 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · JobDiva 40
2.0 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · JobDiva 30
1.7 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · JobDiva 42
1.3 weighted points to CoderPad
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · JobDiva 15
0.9 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · JobDiva 22
0.9 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus JobDiva.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | JobDiva | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 28 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 15 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 22 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 38 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 40 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 29 (F) | +13 | +12.6 |
§ 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 | JobDiva | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 20 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; JobDiva has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 8 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 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for JobDiva, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- JobDiva 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