§ The result
Pinpoint leads CodeSignal by 14 points.
Pinpoint sits 14 points above CodeSignal under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 43 — with Pinpoint filed under ATS-integrated and CodeSignal under Assessment. Pinpoint leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Pinpoint 72 — and at a 20% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | JE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Pinpoint 72
6.8 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Pinpoint 68
2.7 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Pinpoint 38
1.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Pinpoint 52
1.7 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Pinpoint 64
1.1 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Pinpoint 42
0.5 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Pinpoint 66
0.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 72 | -34 | -6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 68 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 64 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 57 (F) | -14 | -14.0 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 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 Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint 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