§ The result
CodeSignal leads micro1 by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, CodeSignal, filed under Assessment, finishes on 43 and micro1, filed under Screening, on 36, 7 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of CodeSignal: CodeSignal is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and micro1 on Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, micro1 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 6 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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, micro1 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 | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · micro1 20
4.5 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · micro1 50
2.4 weighted points to micro1
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · micro1 25
1.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · micro1 45
1.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · micro1 48
0.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · micro1 45
0.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · micro1 22
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 20 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 36 (F) | +7 | +7.1 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 1 | 2 | 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 | 7 | 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 | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 8 | 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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