§ The result
Codility leads Paradox by 13 points.
Codility sits 13 points above Paradox under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 41 — with Codility filed under Assessment and Paradox under Scheduling. Codility leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Paradox leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Codility 66, Paradox 45) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Codility 60, Paradox 40), the second being 30% 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Codility is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Paradox 40
4.0 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 46% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Paradox 25
2.5 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Paradox 45
1.8 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Paradox 35
1.8 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Paradox 45
1.7 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Paradox 50
1.4 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Paradox 50
0.9 weighted points to Paradox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 40 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 35 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 45 | +21 | +1.7 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 41 (F) | +13 | +12.4 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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