§ The result
CodeSignal leads impress.ai by 5 points.
CodeSignal scores 43 and impress.ai 38 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. CodeSignal leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while impress.ai leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, impress.ai 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 5 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, impress.ai under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · impress.ai 22
4.1 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · impress.ai 55
0.8 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · impress.ai 32
0.7 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · impress.ai 35
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · impress.ai 52
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · impress.ai 58
0.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | impress.ai | 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 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 38 (F) | +5 | +5.4 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai 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