§ The result
Codility leads Infor Talent Science on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Codility on 54 and Infor Talent Science on 49, 5 points apart. Codility leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Infor Talent Science is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Codility leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Codility 60 to Infor Talent Science 58. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Codility 62, Infor Talent Science 50, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 6 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
Infor Talent Science
Infor Talent Science is a cloud-based pre-hire behavioral and cognitive assessment platform. It scores candidates against patented machine-learning 'Performance Profiles' built from the behavior and performance data of an employer's successful incumbents, and gives hiring teams fit scores, recommendations and interview questions that are used to rank and route applicants.
§ The record
Codility and Infor Talent Science 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 | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Infor Talent Science 50
1.4 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Infor Talent Science 35
1.1 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Infor Talent Science 45
0.6 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Infor Talent Science 42
0.5 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Infor Talent Science 60
0.5 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Infor Talent Science 58
0.4 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 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 +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Infor Talent Science.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 49 (F) | +5 | +4.5 |
§ 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 | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | 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; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Infor Talent Science 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