§ The result
Glider AI leads CodeSignal by 9 points.
Glider AI scores 52 and CodeSignal 43 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. CodeSignal takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 5 for Glider AI, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (CodeSignal 45, Glider AI 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage Glider AI 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
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
§ The record
CodeSignal and Glider AI 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 | Glider AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Glider AI 68
4.1 weighted points to Glider AI
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Glider AI 52
2.8 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Glider AI 35
1.5 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Glider AI 54
0.6 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Glider AI 40
0.2 weighted points to Glider AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Glider AI 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Glider AI.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Glider AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 68 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 52 (F) | -9 | -9.1 |
§ 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 | Glider AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 6 | 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; Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Glider AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Glider AI 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