§ The result
CodeSignal and Wonderlic tie at 43.
CodeSignal and Wonderlic tie at 43 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. CodeSignal leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Wonderlic 2, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Wonderlic 52 — and at a 20% weight it carries 84% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 2 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
CodeSignal and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Wonderlic 52
2.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Wonderlic 38
1.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Wonderlic 33
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Wonderlic 48
0.5 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to 0.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that 0.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 43 (F) | - | 0.0 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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