§ The result
1 point separates CoderPad and Paradox.
CoderPad (Assessment) edges Paradox (Scheduling) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41. Paradox takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 6 for CoderPad, whose share includes Data Governance Disclosure. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, and Paradox holds it (CoderPad 20, Paradox 50, 18% weight), worth 100% of the weighted advantage Paradox builds across the 1 criterion 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Paradox 50
5.4 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Paradox 45
1.3 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Paradox 35
1.1 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Paradox 45
1.0 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Paradox 40
1.0 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Paradox 50
0.8 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Paradox 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.4 — 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 +1 beside that +0.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 50 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 35 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 41 (F) | +1 | +0.4 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Paradox 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 Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox 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