§ The result
Paycom leads CoderPad by 8 points.
Paycom scores 50 and CoderPad 42 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Paycom leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CoderPad leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (CoderPad 45, Paycom 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Paycom 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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Paycom under ATS-integrated 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 | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Paycom 68
4.6 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Paycom 38
3.2 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Paycom 62
1.2 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Paycom 38
0.7 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Paycom 30
0.3 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Paycom 55
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 68 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 38 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 50 (F) | -8 | -8.5 |
§ 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 | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 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 | 13 | 7 | 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; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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