§ The result
Phenom leads CoderPad by 10 points.
Phenom sits 10 points above CoderPad under rubric v1.0 — 52 against 42 — with Phenom filed under Sourcing and CoderPad under Assessment. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Phenom: Phenom is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and CoderPad on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (CoderPad 20, Phenom 75) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 75% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds 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
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, Phenom 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 | Phenom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Phenom 75
9.9 weighted points to Phenom
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Phenom 55
2.0 weighted points to Phenom
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Phenom 30
1.7 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Phenom 60
0.9 weighted points to Phenom
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Phenom 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Phenom 60
0.4 weighted points to Phenom
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Phenom 55
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Phenom.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Phenom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 75 | -55 | -9.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 60 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 52 (F) | -10 | -10.8 |
§ 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 | Phenom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 the vendor's own 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 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Phenom 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