§ The result
2 points separate CodeSignal and Harri.
CodeSignal (Assessment) edges Harri (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 43 to 41. CodeSignal leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Harri leads 3, including FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, Harri 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 79% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 4 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
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Harri 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 | Harri |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Harri 22
4.1 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Harri 44
2.9 weighted points to Harri
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Harri 35
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Harri 52
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Harri 52
0.3 weighted points to Harri
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Harri 40
0.2 weighted points to Harri
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Harri 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Harri.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Harri | 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 | 44 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 41 (F) | +2 | +1.9 |
§ 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 | Harri | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 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