§ The result
Rippling takes the total, Codility takes more of the criteria.
Rippling (ATS-integrated) edges Codility (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 54. Codility leads more of the criteria than Rippling — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Rippling leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Rippling. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Codility 60, Rippling 73 — and at a 20% weight it carries 63% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds across the 3 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Codility is filed under Assessment AI, Rippling under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Codility is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Codility | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | High |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Rippling 73
2.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Rippling 64
1.1 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Rippling 42
0.5 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Rippling 45
0.4 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Rippling 47
0.4 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Rippling 60
0.2 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Rippling 64
0.2 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 73 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 64 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 47 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 64 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 56 (F) | -2 | -2.8 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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