§ The result
Paycom leads CodeSignal by 7 points.
Paycom scores 50 and CodeSignal 43 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Paycom leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Paycom 68 — and at a 20% weight it carries 70% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 3 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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Paycom 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 | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Paycom 68
6.0 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Paycom 62
1.8 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Paycom 38
1.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Paycom 30
0.8 weighted points to Paycom
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 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 Paycom.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 68 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 38 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 50 (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 | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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