§ The result
4 points separate CodeSignal and DevSkiller.
Within the Assessment cohort, CodeSignal edges DevSkiller by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 43 to 39. CodeSignal leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while DevSkiller leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, DevSkiller 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 3 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
DevSkiller
DevSkiller (now branded SkillPanel) provides technical skills assessment and coding tests that automatically score developer candidates on real-world work-sample tasks using hidden verification unit tests and static code analysis.
§ The record
CodeSignal and DevSkiller are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | DevSkiller |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | PL |
| Founded | 2015 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · DevSkiller 22
4.1 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · DevSkiller 35
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · DevSkiller 58
0.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · DevSkiller 52
0.3 weighted points to DevSkiller
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · DevSkiller 40
0.2 weighted points to DevSkiller
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 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 +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus DevSkiller.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | DevSkiller | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 22 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 39 (F) | +4 | +4.5 |
§ 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 | DevSkiller | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 4 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; DevSkiller has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for DevSkiller sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for DevSkiller, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- DevSkiller 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