§ The result
Codility leads Fountain on all 7 criteria.
Codility sits 10 points above Fountain under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 44 — with Codility filed under Assessment and Fountain under Screening. Codility is ahead of Fountain on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Data Governance Disclosure at Codility 57 to Fountain 55. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Codility 45, Fountain 30, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 28% 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
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
§ The record
Codility is filed under Assessment AI, Fountain under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Fountain |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Fountain 30
2.7 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Fountain 50
2.0 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Fountain 30
1.8 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Fountain 40
1.2 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Fountain 52
1.1 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Fountain 58
0.5 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Fountain 55
0.3 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Fountain.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Fountain | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 30 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 44 (F) | +10 | +9.6 |
§ 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 | Fountain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fountain 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