§ The result
CoderPad leads Turing by 6 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts CoderPad on 42 and Turing on 36, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of CoderPad: CoderPad is ahead on Post-Market Monitoring and Turing on Bias Audit Transparency. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (CoderPad 44, Turing 27, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage CoderPad holds across the 6 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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
CoderPad and Turing are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Turing 27
2.0 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Turing 44
1.5 weighted points to CoderPad
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Turing 28
1.4 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Turing 45
1.4 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Turing 48
0.8 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Turing 42
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Turing 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 27 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 36 (F) | +6 | +5.4 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 8 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing 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