§ The result
CodeSignal leads Qureos on 6 of the 7 criteria.
CodeSignal, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above Qureos, filed under Screening: 43 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Qureos is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: CodeSignal takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Human Oversight Design, CodeSignal 55 to Qureos 54. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 45, Qureos 12 — and at an 18% weight it carries 59% 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos 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 | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Qureos 12
5.9 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Qureos 28
2.0 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Qureos 44
0.9 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Qureos 52
0.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Qureos 35
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Qureos 54
0.1 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 12 | +33 | +5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 33 (F) | +10 | +10.1 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 7 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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