§ The result
Findem leads CodeSignal by 15 points.
Findem finishes 15 points clear of CodeSignal under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 43 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Findem leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while CodeSignal leads 1, including Customer Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, Findem 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Findem 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Findem under Candidate sourcing 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 CodeSignal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Findem 83
6.8 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Findem 58
4.0 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Findem 38
1.9 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Findem 57
1.1 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Findem 60
0.6 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Findem 42
0.5 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Findem 58
0.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 58 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 83 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 58 (F) | -15 | -14.6 |
§ 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 | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem 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