§ The result
Codility leads TalentLens on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Codility scores 54 and TalentLens 46 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Codility leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so TalentLens is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Codility leads is Human Oversight Design, Codility 62 to TalentLens 57. Even Post-Market Monitoring, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Codility 50, TalentLens 32, 12% weight), is only 28% of the weighted advantage Codility builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
TalentLens
TalentLens, Pearson's workplace psychometrics brand, publishes the Watson-Glaser critical-thinking test, Raven's Adaptive, BMCT-II and DAT Next Generation, which candidates take online and which are scored automatically against norm groups to produce percentile-based reports for hiring and development.
§ The record
Codility and TalentLens 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 | TalentLens |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2009 | Not recorded |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · TalentLens 32
2.2 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 50% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · TalentLens 30
1.8 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · TalentLens 52
1.6 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · TalentLens 50
1.1 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · TalentLens 58
0.6 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · TalentLens 57
0.6 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus TalentLens.
| Category | Weight | Codility | TalentLens | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 45 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 32 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 46 (F) | +8 | +7.8 |
§ 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 | TalentLens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 24 | 5 | 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; TalentLens has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for TalentLens sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for TalentLens, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TalentLens 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