§ The result
CoderPad leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
CoderPad, filed under Assessment, comes out 12 points above Moonhub, filed under Sourcing: 42 against 30 under rubric v1.0. CoderPad leads every one of the 7 criteria, Moonhub none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, CoderPad 20 to Moonhub 18. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (CoderPad 44, Moonhub 22) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (CoderPad 45, Moonhub 30), the second being 27% of the weighted advantage CoderPad holds across the 7 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
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Moonhub 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 | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2022 |
§ 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 · Moonhub 30
3.0 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Moonhub 22
2.6 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Moonhub 40
2.1 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Moonhub 38
1.6 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Moonhub 48
1.1 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Moonhub 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Moonhub 18
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 30 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 18 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 40 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 22 | +22 | +2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 30 (F) | +12 | +11.2 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 7 | 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; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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