§ The result
Test Partnership leads CodeSignal by 7 points.
Test Partnership finishes 7 points ahead of CodeSignal under rubric v1.0, 50 to 43, both scored as Assessment entries. CodeSignal takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for Test Partnership, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Test Partnership 57 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership 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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
CodeSignal and Test Partnership 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 | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Test Partnership 57
3.8 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Test Partnership 36
1.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Test Partnership 57
1.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Test Partnership 33
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Test Partnership 48
0.5 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Test Partnership 58
0.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 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 -6.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 57 | -19 | -3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 36 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 50 (F) | -7 | -6.8 |
§ 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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership 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