§ The result
CodeSignal leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, CodeSignal and Cognisess come out 43 and 30 under rubric v1.0, 13 points in favour of CodeSignal. CodeSignal takes all 7 criteria and Cognisess none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, CodeSignal 25 to Cognisess 20. The advantage CodeSignal holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (CodeSignal 45, Cognisess 20, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 34% of the weighted points CodeSignal gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
CodeSignal and Cognisess are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Cognisess 20
4.5 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Cognisess 25
2.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Cognisess 40
1.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Cognisess 42
1.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Cognisess 42
1.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Cognisess 20
0.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Cognisess 32
0.7 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 20 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 42 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 30 (F) | +13 | +13.1 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 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