§ The result
Codility leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Codility finishes 24 points clear of Cognisess inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 54 against 30. Codility leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Cognisess leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Codility 60, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Codility
Codility is a technical/coding assessment platform that screens and interviews software engineers with work-sample coding tests, live technical interviews, and integrity tooling including plagiarism and AI-use detection.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Codility and Cognisess 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 | Codility | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2009 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Cognisess 25
7.0 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Cognisess 20
4.5 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Cognisess 20
3.3 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Cognisess 42
2.4 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Cognisess 42
2.3 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Cognisess 32
2.2 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Cognisess 40
2.1 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +23.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +24 beside that +23.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 25 | +35 | +7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 20 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 20 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 32 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 40 | +26 | +2.1 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 30 (F) | +24 | +23.7 |
§ 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 | Codility | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| 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 | 5 | 0 | 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 a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess 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