§ The result
Textkernel leads CodeSignal on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Textkernel scores 51 and CodeSignal 43 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Textkernel leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so CodeSignal is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Textkernel leads is Post-Market Monitoring, CodeSignal 38 to Textkernel 40. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Textkernel 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Textkernel 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
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Textkernel under Candidate sourcing 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 | Textkernel |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2015 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Textkernel 55
3.4 weighted points to Textkernel
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Textkernel 55
1.8 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Textkernel 32
1.1 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Textkernel 55
0.8 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Textkernel 60
0.6 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Textkernel 40
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Textkernel.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Textkernel | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 51 (F) | -8 | -7.8 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 13 | 5 | 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; Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Textkernel 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