§ The result
Codility leads softgarden on all 7 criteria.
Codility, filed under Assessment, comes out 12 points above softgarden, filed under ATS-integrated: 54 against 42 under rubric v1.0. Codility leads every one of the 7 criteria, softgarden none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Codility 57 to softgarden 54. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Codility 45, softgarden 22, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 35% 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Codility is filed under Assessment AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 2009 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · softgarden 22
4.1 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · softgarden 42
3.6 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · softgarden 30
1.8 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · softgarden 44
0.7 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · softgarden 58
0.6 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · softgarden 54
0.4 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Codility | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 22 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 42 (F) | +12 | +11.8 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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