§ The result
Greenhouse leads CodeSignal on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse finishes 24 points clear of CodeSignal under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 43 (F) — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; CodeSignal leads none. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (CodeSignal 45, Greenhouse 86) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (CodeSignal 38, Greenhouse 78), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 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
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Greenhouse under ATS-integrated 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 | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ 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 · Greenhouse 78
8.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Greenhouse 86
7.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Greenhouse 42
2.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Greenhouse 58
2.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Greenhouse 64
2.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Greenhouse 66
1.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Greenhouse 64
0.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -23.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -24 beside that -23.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Greenhouse.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Greenhouse | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 78 | -40 | -8.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 86 | -41 | -7.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 64 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 66 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 58 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 67 (D) | -24 | -23.9 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 16 | 1 | 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; Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse 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 Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Greenhouse 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