§ The result
Codility leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Codility (Assessment) opens a 21-point lead on Qureos (Screening), 54 to 33. Codility leads every one of the 7 criteria, Qureos none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Codility 62 to Qureos 54. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Codility 45, Qureos 12) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Codility 60, Qureos 28), the second being 31% 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Codility is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Codility | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AE |
| Founded | 2009 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Qureos 28
6.4 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Qureos 12
5.9 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Qureos 25
2.5 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Qureos 44
1.9 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Qureos 35
1.8 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Qureos 52
1.1 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Qureos 54
1.0 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +20.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +21 beside that +20.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 28 | +32 | +6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 12 | +33 | +5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 35 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 33 (F) | +21 | +20.7 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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