§ The result
Workable leads CodeSignal by 5 points.
Workable scores 48 and CodeSignal 43 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Workable leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Workable 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 57% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 4 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
CodeSignal is filed under Assessment AI, Workable under ATS-integrated 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Workable 55
3.4 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Workable 58
1.2 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Workable 62
0.8 weighted points to Workable
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Workable 42
0.5 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Workable 42
0.5 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Workable 56
0.5 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 48 (F) | -5 | -4.9 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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