§ The result
3 points separate TalentLens and CodeSignal.
Within the Assessment cohort, TalentLens edges CodeSignal by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43. TalentLens leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 2 are level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (CodeSignal 38, TalentLens 52) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 74% of the weighted advantage TalentLens holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
CodeSignal and TalentLens are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · TalentLens 52
2.8 weighted points to TalentLens
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · TalentLens 30
0.8 weighted points to TalentLens
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · TalentLens 32
0.7 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · TalentLens 58
0.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · TalentLens 57
0.2 weighted points to TalentLens
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -2.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 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 -2.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 45 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 46 (F) | -3 | -2.8 |
§ 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 | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 24 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens 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