§ The result
Paycom leads DevSkiller by 11 points.
Paycom sits 11 points above DevSkiller under rubric v1.0 — 50 against 39 — with Paycom filed under ATS-integrated and DevSkiller under Assessment. Paycom leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while DevSkiller leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — DevSkiller 35, Paycom 68 — and at a 20% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
DevSkiller
DevSkiller (now branded SkillPanel) provides technical skills assessment and coding tests that automatically score developer candidates on real-world work-sample tasks using hidden verification unit tests and static code analysis.
Vendor profile
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
DevSkiller is filed under Assessment AI, Paycom 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 DevSkiller is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | DevSkiller | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | PL | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
DevSkiller 35 · Paycom 68
6.6 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
DevSkiller 22 · Paycom 38
2.9 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
DevSkiller 52 · Paycom 62
1.5 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
DevSkiller 25 · Paycom 30
0.8 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
DevSkiller 40 · Paycom 38
0.2 weighted points to DevSkiller
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
DevSkiller 58 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is DevSkiller minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | DevSkiller | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 68 | -33 | -6.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 50 (F) | -11 | -11.7 |
§ 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 | DevSkiller | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 4 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
DevSkiller has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for DevSkiller sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 15 for DevSkiller, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- DevSkiller last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom 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