§ The result
2 points separate CoderPad and Personio.
CoderPad (Assessment) edges Personio (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 40. CoderPad leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Human Oversight Design, while Personio leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. The advantage CoderPad holds is spread out: Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (CoderPad 57, Personio 48, 12% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points CoderPad gains across the 4 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
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Personio 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 | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Personio 48
1.1 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Personio 40
1.0 weighted points to CoderPad
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Personio 25
0.9 weighted points to Personio
8% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Personio 50
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Personio 48
0.5 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Personio 30
0.3 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Personio 52
0.3 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Personio.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 40 (F) | +2 | +1.3 |
§ 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 | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 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 | 8 | Sources 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; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad and Personio 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 Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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