§ The result
4 points separate Crosschq and CodeSignal.
Crosschq (Screening) edges CodeSignal (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 43. CodeSignal takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for Crosschq, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (CodeSignal 38, Crosschq 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Crosschq holds across the 5 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
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Crosschq under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Crosschq 50
2.4 weighted points to Crosschq
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Crosschq 38
1.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Crosschq 58
1.2 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Crosschq 62
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Crosschq 30
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Crosschq 40
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 38 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 47 (F) | -4 | -4.2 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 7 | 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 | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 38 | 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; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq 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