§ The result
3 points separate CodeSignal and Pillar.
CodeSignal (Assessment) edges Pillar (Screening) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 43 to 40. CodeSignal leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Pillar leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (CodeSignal 62, Pillar 50) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (CodeSignal 45, Pillar 38), the second being 29% 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
Pillar
Pillar (now "AI Interview Companion by Employ") is an interview intelligence platform that records and transcribes job interviews, generates AI interview guides and highlight clips, and surfaces candidate insights and interviewer-coaching recommendations.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Pillar under Screening 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 | Pillar |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 21% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Pillar 38
1.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Pillar 50
1.0 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Pillar 48
0.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Pillar 42
0.8 weighted points to Pillar
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Pillar 30
0.8 weighted points to Pillar
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Pillar 45
0.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Pillar 33
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Pillar.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Pillar | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 38 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 40 (F) | +3 | +2.9 |
§ 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 | Pillar | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 12 | 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; Pillar has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Pillar, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pillar 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.
§ Where next