§ The result
Criteria leads CodeSignal by 10 points.
Criteria sits 10 points above CodeSignal under rubric v1.0, 53 against 43, with both filed under Assessment. Criteria leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 1, including Customer Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Criteria 68 — and at a 20% weight it carries 60% of the weighted advantage Criteria holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
§ The record
CodeSignal and Criteria 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 | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Criteria 68
6.0 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Criteria 62
1.8 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Criteria 32
1.1 weighted points to Criteria
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Criteria 48
0.5 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Criteria 42
0.5 weighted points to Criteria
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Criteria 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Criteria 56
0.1 weighted points to Criteria
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 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 -9.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Criteria.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Criteria | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 68 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 53 (F) | -10 | -9.8 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | Criteria | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Criteria 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