§ The result
4 points separate Knockri and CodeSignal.
Knockri holds a 4-point edge over CodeSignal under rubric v1.0, 47 to 43, across the Video interview and Assessment cohorts. Knockri leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Knockri 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Knockri 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
Knockri
Knockri runs asynchronous structured behavioural interviews that candidates answer by audio, video or text; it transcribes the answers, uses NLP models to score the work-related behaviours they describe against a skills framework, and produces per-skill scores and ranked shortlists.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Knockri under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Knockri |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Knockri 55
3.4 weighted points to Knockri
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Knockri 35
1.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Knockri 35
1.5 weighted points to Knockri
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Knockri 55
0.8 weighted points to Knockri
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Knockri 60
0.6 weighted points to Knockri
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Knockri 55
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Knockri 35
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Knockri.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Knockri | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 35 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 47 (F) | -4 | -3.5 |
§ 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 | Knockri | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 36 | 5 | Sources 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; Knockri has 41 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 36 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Knockri sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 41 for Knockri, across 7 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Knockri 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