§ The result
Findem takes the total, Codility takes more of the criteria.
Findem (Sourcing) edges Codility (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 58 to 54. Codility leads more of the criteria than Findem — 5 to 1 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Findem leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Findem. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Codility 45, Findem 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 1 criterion 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
Codility is filed under Assessment AI, Findem 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 Codility is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Codility | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Findem 83
6.8 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Findem 42
1.0 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Findem 58
0.6 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Findem 38
0.6 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Findem 58
0.4 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Findem 60
0.2 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 83 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 58 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Codility | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem 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 Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem 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