HomeCompareCodeSignal vs hireEZ

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

CodeSignal vs hireEZ

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

1 point separates CodeSignal and hireEZ.

CodeSignal (Assessment) edges hireEZ (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 43 to 42. CodeSignal and hireEZ each lead 2 of the 7 criteria, with 3 level, though the side of the split CodeSignal holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, hireEZ 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 89% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, hireEZ 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.

RecordCodeSignalhireEZ
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20152015

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 55% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    CodeSignal 45 · hireEZ 30

    2.7 weighted points to CodeSignal

  2. 15% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    CodeSignal 50 · hireEZ 60

    1.5 weighted points to hireEZ

  3. 12% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    CodeSignal 55 · hireEZ 58

    0.4 weighted points to hireEZ

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    CodeSignal 62 · hireEZ 58

    0.3 weighted points to CodeSignal

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.2.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is CodeSignal minus hireEZ.

CategoryWeightCodeSignalhireEZΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3838--
Bias Audit Transparency18%4530+15+2.7
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5060-10-1.5
Human Oversight Design12%5558-3-0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3838--
Customer Documentation8%6258+4+0.3
Total100%43 (F)42 (F)+1+1.2

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCodeSignalhireEZ
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%30Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%30Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%155Sources on the vendor's own domain95Sources on the vendor's own domain

CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; hireEZ has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for hireEZ, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
CodeSignal last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
hireEZ 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.