§ The result
Gem leads CodeSignal on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Gem sits 12 points above CodeSignal under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 43 — with Gem filed under Sourcing and CodeSignal under Assessment. Gem leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so CodeSignal is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Gem leads is Human Oversight Design, CodeSignal 55 to Gem 61. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (CodeSignal 45, Gem 66) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (CodeSignal 38, Gem 58), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Gem 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
Gem
Gem is an AI-first recruiting platform combining a talent CRM, AI sourcing and outreach automation, candidate engagement, and a newer applicant tracking system with AI-powered application review and ranking.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Gem 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 | Gem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Gem 58
4.0 weighted points to Gem
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Gem 66
3.8 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Gem 35
1.5 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Gem 47
1.1 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Gem 57
1.1 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Gem 61
0.7 weighted points to Gem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -12.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Gem.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Gem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 58 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 66 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 61 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 47 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 55 (F) | -12 | -12.1 |
§ 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 | Gem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 19 | 2 | 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; Gem has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Gem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 21 for Gem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Gem 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