§ The result
2 points separate UKG and CoderPad.
UKG (ATS-integrated) edges CoderPad (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 42. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of UKG: UKG 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, UKG 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage UKG 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
CoderPad is filed under Assessment AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · UKG 30
1.8 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · UKG 35
1.1 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · UKG 38
0.7 weighted points to CoderPad
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · UKG 48
0.6 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · UKG 52
0.6 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 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 -2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 44 (F) | -2 | -2.2 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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