The 7 best technical assessment platforms in 2026, ranked on published criteria
Codility scored highest on our published criteria for hiring teams that need a technical hiring decision they can defend to a candidate, a regulator or a client, with candidates working alongside coding agents such as Claude Code and Codex. Three other tools fit specific needs better. HackerRank fits teams that want a large ready-made library and the sheer number of ATS connectors. CodeSignal fits teams that want pre-built certified assessments with a documented identity workflow. Coderbyte fits teams that want unlimited candidates and admins at a fixed annual price.
We read each vendor’s pricing page, product pages, help center and trust pages between September 23 and October 9, 2026. We rechecked every competitor claim and read G2 and Capterra ratings on October 26, 2026. We did not trial the products.
This article covers:
- A ranked shortlist of 7 technical assessment platforms, with the full scoring sheet and a source next to every rating
- A side-by-side view of how each platform handles candidates who use coding agents, and what it records
- The price of one assessed candidate on each entry plan, five questions to ask each vendor and a decision table
If you are hiring for non-technical roles or need psychometric tests, our comparison of talent assessment tools covers that ground.
Ask which coding agent the candidate can use, and where the AI activity is saved. Codility and CodeSignal document production coding agents such as Claude Code and Codex inside the task, and Codility preconfigures them so nobody needs an API key or a login. HackerRank documents its own coding agent and agentic development environment inside its own IDE. Coderbyte supports Codex and Claude Code in VS Code with the candidate’s own keys. Coderbyte’s help pages do not document how the activity is saved for the reviewer.
Ask whether the proctoring can see a hidden overlay app, and on which plan. Overlay apps are AI apps that run outside the browser, where browser-based proctoring cannot see them. CodeSignal’s proctoring runs in the browser, and no operating-system-level detection of hidden overlay apps is documented. Codility’s Desktop App is designed to surface hidden overlay apps such as Cluely, and HackerRank’s Desktop App mode works at the operating-system level as part of its AI Add-on.
Ask for the validation evidence behind the score, and give it to your assessment science or industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology team. Codility names its I-O psychologist and states an adverse impact method aligned with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance. HackerRank and CodeSignal describe I-O work without a public technical manual, and no validation evidence is documented for iMocha or Coderbyte.
Compare the price per assessed candidate before you compare plans. Vendors count an invite, an attempt and a credit differently. Coderbyte sells unlimited candidates and admins for $1,999 a year.
For a technical hiring decision you have to defend to a candidate, a regulator or a client, with candidates working alongside coding agents, Codility scored highest on our published criteria. CodeSignal fits pre-built certified assessments with a documented identity workflow, HackerRank fits a large ready-made library with the sheer number of ATS connectors, and Coderbyte fits unlimited candidates and admins at a fixed annual price.
Which are the best technical assessment platforms in 2026?
What is a technical assessment platform, and why are buyers re-shopping in 2026?
A technical assessment platform is software that hiring teams use to test a candidate’s hard skills, usually coding, before or during an engineering interview. The platform gives every candidate the same task, records how the candidate worked and scores the result against fixed criteria.
Hiring teams use one for four reasons:
- One standard across teams. Every candidate for a role gets the same task and the same scoring, so hiring teams in different offices and regions compare candidates on the same evidence.
- Fewer interview hours for engineers. Engineers review a scored result instead of running a first-round screen for every applicant, so fewer unqualified candidates reach a technical interview.
- Evidence you can keep. The score, the code and the integrity signals stay in a candidate record you can show to a candidate or an auditor.
- Tasks closer to the job. A realistic environment shows how a candidate works in a codebase, with the tools the team uses.
What changed in 2026
Coding agents moved inside assessments. CodeSignal launched agentic coding assessments with Claude Code, Cursor or Codex in March 2026. HackerRank added Plan mode to its assistant in July 2026, on top of the Agent mode it released in July 2025. Codility brought Claude Code, Anthropic’s coding agent, to Screen, Interview and Skills Intelligence in August 2026, and added Codex, OpenAI’s coding agent, alongside it in October 2026.
Desktop apps started to look for hidden overlay apps. Codility widened access to its Desktop App, designed to surface hidden overlay apps such as InterviewCoder and Cluely, in August 2026. HackerRank offers a Desktop App mode with the same aim, and we found no public launch date for it.
AI interviewers arrived in assessment platforms. HackerRank made its Chakra AI interviewer generally available on October 5, 2026, after about six months in beta. CodeSignal’s AI Interviewers, iMocha’s Tara and HackerEarth’s OnScreen agent are also on the market. We found no public launch date for any of the three.
How did we choose and score these 7 platforms?
We scored each platform on nine weighted criteria, using only each vendor’s public documentation.
Inclusion and exclusion rules
We included a platform when three things were true: its core product is a scored pre-hire technical or coding assessment, its product documentation and pricing page are public, and it has 2026 reviews on G2 or Capterra.
We excluded psychometric-first assessment suites, interview-as-a-service providers, certification and infrastructure labs, candidate practice sites, and platforms built first for live coding interviews, which our comparison of coding interview platforms covers.
Other tools we evaluated include:
- Mercer | Mettl: a broad talent assessment suite whose catalog spans psychometric, aptitude and coding tests. Our talent assessment tools comparison covers suites of this kind.
- SHL: a psychometric-first assessment suite.
- Karat: interview-as-a-service, where Karat’s own interviewers run the technical interviews.
- TrueAbility: performance-based certification exams and training labs, with hiring as one of its use cases.
- SkillPanel, formerly DevSkiller: rebranded on September 29, 2025 as a skills intelligence platform that still sells technical screening. We did not research it in depth for this edition.
- Byteboard: project-based technical assessments, part of Karat since January 2025. We did not research it in depth for this edition.
Scoring criteria
We weighted AI-assisted work and integrity highest, at 20% each, because 2026 is the year coding agents moved inside assessments and vendors started naming hidden overlay apps such as Cluely and InterviewCoder. Scoring defensibility and task realism follow at 15% each, because they decide whether a result still holds up once candidates work with AI.
We set the weights before rating any platform. Compliance posture was added during review as a ninth criterion, at the 5% weight our sibling comparisons use. No other weight changed, so the weights add up to 105%.
| # | Criterion | Weight | Strong requires |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AI-assisted and agentic work, governed and recorded | 20% | Candidates can use a production coding agent such as Claude Code, Codex or Cursor inside the task, every interaction is recorded for the reviewer, and an admin can switch AI on or off per test, task or question. Partial: a vendor-built assistant or agent mode inside the vendor's own editor, recorded |
| 2 | Integrity signals and identity | 20% | Operating-system-level detection of hidden overlay apps included in the core product rather than sold as a separately priced add-on, identity verification, and one reviewable rating with the evidence attached |
| 3 | Scoring defensibility | 15% | Public validity documentation or a technical manual, named I-O psychologists and a stated adverse impact method |
| 4 | Task realism and environment fidelity | 15% | Multi-file, real-world tasks in a VS Code-class environment with a terminal |
| 5 | Enterprise readiness | 10% | Single sign-on (SSO) plus named enterprise applicant tracking system (ATS) connectors |
| 6 | Library breadth and stack coverage | 10% | 5,000+ ready-made questions or tasks |
| 7 | Candidate experience | 5% | A stated WCAG conformance level or a VPAT, plus documented accommodations |
| 8 | Pricing transparency | 5% | Published prices for at least one paid plan on the vendor's own pricing page |
| 9 | Compliance posture | 5% | SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, EU data hosting and a published EU AI Act position, all documented on the vendor's own pages. Partial means two or three of the four, Limited means one |
Integrity signals are the evidence a reviewer uses to confirm that the candidate did the work: identity checks, proctoring and the record of how the candidate used AI. Adverse impact is a measurable difference in pass rates between groups of candidates, which a validated assessment checks for at every cut score.
Strong scores 3 points, Partial 2, Limited 1 and Not documented 0, so the weighted score is out of 315. Each row links the pages behind its ratings.
| Platform | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Score | Rank | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codility | S | S | S | S | S | P | S | S | S | 305 | 1 | |
| CodeSignal | S | P | P | S | S | P | S | S | P | 265 | 2 | |
| HackerRank | P | P | P | S | S | S | N | S | P | 240 | 3 | |
| HackerEarth | L | P | P | P | S | S | N | P | P | 200 | 4 |
pricingtrust center
|
| TestGorilla | L | P | P | L | S | P | P | S | P | 190 | 5 | |
| iMocha | P | P | N | P | S | S | N | L | P | 185 | 6 | |
| Coderbyte | P | L | N | S | P | P | N | S | P | 170 | 7 |
S = Strong, P = Partial, L = Limited, N = Not documented in the pages we read.
Codility, CodeSignal and HackerRank keep the top three places in that order under every weighting we tested. We tested four: the weights above, equal weights, a weighting built for high-volume buyers that puts library breadth first, and a version that rates every “not documented” candidate experience as Partial. Codility leads CodeSignal by 40 points and HackerRank by 65 on the weights above.
For HackerRank to pass Codility, HackerRank would need to document four things: a production coding agent inside the task, recorded and switchable per test, task or question; operating-system detection in its core product; a public technical manual; and a stated WCAG level or VPAT. To pass Codility, CodeSignal would need operating-system detection in its core product, a published technical manual with named psychologists and a library of 5,000+ questions.
The top three differ most on these ratings:
- AI-assisted work. Codility and CodeSignal both document production coding agents inside the task. HackerRank documents its own multi-model assistant with Ask, Plan and Agent modes inside its own IDE, which meets the Partial definition. CodeSignal’s two pages on agentic assessments do not document how the AI activity is recorded for the reviewer, or AI control per test, task or question.
- Integrity. CodeSignal’s proctoring runs in the browser, and no operating-system-level detection is documented. HackerRank’s Desktop App mode works at the operating-system level and is sold as part of its AI Add-on. Codility includes its Desktop App in a plan rather than selling it as an add-on. Codility also provides identity verification and one Integrity Risk level with reviewable evidence.
- Defensibility. Codility names its I-O psychologist, Tony Mellek, Ph.D., documents its adverse impact method and, on its assessment validity page, documents its validation evidence in a Technical Manual provided on request. HackerRank describes an I-O psychology team and a fairness report with no public technical manual. CodeSignal’s talent science page names no psychologists and reports no figures.
Compliance facts behind criterion 9, read on each vendor’s own pages:
| Platform | SOC 2 | ISO 27001 | EU data hosting | EU AI Act position | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codility | Type II audited | ISO 27001 certified | EU and US hosting | Published on its compliance page | S |
| CodeSignal | Type II | Not documented | Not documented: US AWS regions only | "Our AI practices align with the EU AI Act" | P |
| HackerRank | Type 2 | Documented | Not documented | Not documented | P |
| HackerEarth | Type II | Documented, among five ISO standards | Not documented | Not readable: the trust center requires secure access | P |
| TestGorilla | Type 2 | Not documented | Servers in the European Economic Area | Published on its blog | P |
| iMocha | Type II | ISO 27001:2022 | Not documented: primary hosting in East US | Not documented | P |
| Coderbyte | Type 2, report file named "Coderbyte Draft Report SOC 2 Type 2 Final Report" | Not documented | Not documented | Its security checklist recommends not enabling AI features until EU AI Act requirements are addressed | P |
Criterion 9 checks the facts each vendor documents on its own pages. The legal reading of the EU AI Act stays with your legal team.
Transparency and limitations
Comparison snapshot: which technical assessment platform fits which team?
This table is the two-minute comparison. Each entry below gives the full detail and its sources.
| Platform | Best for | Standout capability | Entry pricing | G2 rating | Who should not use it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codility | Agentic coding in engineering roles and agentic work in business roles | The real Claude Code and Codex in the candidate's VS Code terminal, with nothing to set up | $1,200 a year for 120 invites | 4.6 out of 5, 900+ reviews | Teams that want an AI interviewer to run the conversation, or need ATS integration on an entry-priced plan |
| CodeSignal | Pre-built certified assessments with an identity workflow | Government ID, face match and human review | $79 a month, billed annually | 4.5 out of 5, 1,400+ reviews | Teams that need operating-system-level detection of hidden apps or EU data hosting |
| HackerRank | A large question library and the sheer number of ATS connectors | 7,500+ questions and 22+ enterprise ATS integrations | $79 a month, billed annually | 4.5 out of 5, 500+ reviews | Teams that want candidates on production coding agents such as Claude Code and Codex, or need EU data hosting |
| HackerEarth | Hackathons and developer-community sourcing | Hackathon and community programs | $990 a year for 120 invites | 4.5 out of 5, 600+ reviews | Teams that want candidates working with coding agents during the test |
| TestGorilla | Technical and non-technical roles from one library | A free plan and one library across role types | Free plan; Core from $215 a month, billed annually | 4.5 out of 5, 1,400+ reviews | Teams that need multi-file coding tasks in a VS Code-class environment |
| iMocha | Enterprise skills inventories | 10,000+ assessments across skill categories | Quote only | 4.4 out of 5, 200+ reviews | Teams that need published validation evidence or EU data hosting |
| Coderbyte | Unlimited candidates and admins at a fixed price | $1,999 a year for unlimited candidates and admins | $99 a month for 20 invites | 4.4 out of 5, 400+ reviews | Teams that need identity verification or a documented record of AI activity for the reviewer |
The 7 best technical assessment platforms of 2026
Codility
Codility runs technical assessments across three products: Screen for screening, Interview for live technical interviews and Skills Intelligence for measuring current teams. Each product also runs on its own. AI for Business runs inside Screen and Skills Intelligence for business roles.
Best for
Assessing agentic coding in engineering roles and agentic work in business roles, with every AI interaction reviewable. Codility also fits teams that need a technical hiring decision they can defend to a candidate, a regulator or a client. Early career and graduate hiring that needs proctoring is a Codility fit too.
Key features
AI use and integrity
Codility leads with the real Claude Code and Codex, preconfigured in the candidate’s VS Code terminal. Nobody needs an API key or a login, and every AI interaction is saved to the candidate record for review. Codility runs Claude Code and Codex inside the task because engineers build with coding agents.
You decide where AI belongs. AI Assistance is enabled or disabled per task in Screen and Skills Intelligence and per interview in Interview, so a build task can allow the agent while a fundamentals task keeps it off. An account-wide AI switch lets a legal or security team turn every AI feature off at once.
Replay and AI usage insights on each report show the models, interactions and tokens. AI Follow-Up Questions add evidence for the reviewer and are never scored.
In Screen and Skills Intelligence, scoring is deterministic and no AI sits in the pass or fail decision.
Codility Interview runs live technical interviews in a shared VS Code environment with a whiteboard and a full transcript, with AI allowed or turned off for each interview. In a live interview, the hiring decision stays with the interviewer, fully informed by every prompt, response and terminal command on the record. The environment runs sidecar services such as databases, caching and message queues. A shared terminal lets the candidate and the interviewer both work with Claude Code and Codex.
Codility does not auto-fail a candidate on an integrity signal. The customer’s hiring team always decides.
Pros
- Candidates work with the real Claude Code and Codex, and the reviewer sees every prompt and response in the candidate record, so the reviewer judges how the candidate worked with the agent as well as the final code
- A score with no AI in it, next to the AI activity and the integrity signals in one candidate record
- A named I-O psychologist and an adverse impact method aligned with EEOC guidance, including the four-fifths rule and statistical testing, which your assessment science team and your legal team can check
Cons
- ATS integrations, SSO, the Desktop App, ID verification and Claude Code are listed on the quote-only Custom plan, and the Starter and Scale plans list no ATS integration.
- Codility’s ready-made library is smaller: 1,300+ validated tasks against HackerRank’s 7,500+ questions. Every task in Codility’s library is already validated, so a team can send one without building or validating a test first. Custom tasks built with MCP from your own IDE cover roles outside the library.
- Codility offers no AI interviewer, by design. The FAQ below explains the reason.
Pricing
User reviews
Codility is rated 4.6 out of 5 on G2, 900+ reviews, and 4.6 out of 5 on Capterra, 40+ reviews, both checked October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, Claude Code help article, Codex in Codility, product updates, Desktop App, assessment validity, checked October 9, 21 and 26, 2026. Head-to-heads: Codility vs HackerRank, Codility vs CodeSignal.
CodeSignal
CodeSignal sells technical assessments, interviews and AI Interviewers, with Certified Assessments and a documented identity workflow at the center of its hiring product.
Best for
Standardized pre-built certified assessments with a documented identity workflow.
Key features
AI use and integrity
CodeSignal’s Agentic Interviewing article, updated October 1, 2026, names agents “such as Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and similar tools”, chosen with an environment switcher. The article and CodeSignal’s agentic coding data sheet do not document how the AI activity is recorded for the reviewer, whether candidates use the vendors’ own agents or a CodeSignal harness, or the setup for Claude Code and Codex. For Cursor, the interviewer or the candidate signs in with their own Cursor account each time. Proctoring runs in the browser.
Pros
- A strong identity workflow, with government ID, face match and human review
- Published self-serve plans, so a team can start without a sales call
Cons
- CodeSignal’s proctoring runs in the browser, and no operating-system-level detection of hidden overlay apps is documented.
- The talent science page names no psychologists and reports no figures.
- Enterprise ATS integrations and SSO sit on the quote-only Pro plan.
- No EU data hosting is documented: the trust center FAQ lists US AWS regions only. No ISO 27001 certification is documented.
Pricing
User reviews
CodeSignal is rated 4.5 out of 5 on G2, 1,400+ reviews, and 4.6 out of 5 on Capterra, 40+ reviews, both checked October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, Agentic Interviewing, March 2026 product updates, trust center, checked October 9 and 19, 2026. Head-to-head: Codility vs CodeSignal.
HackerRank
HackerRank sells coding tests, interviews and the Chakra AI interviewer from one platform, with a large ready-made question library.
Best for
A large technical question library and the sheer number of ATS connectors.
Key features
AI use and integrity
HackerRank’s AI-assisted interviews run a multi-model assistant built into HackerRank’s own IDE, with Claude, Gemini and GPT variants among the models, and Ask, Plan and Agent modes. Agent mode and model switching work in unguarded mode only. In tests, admins set guarded or unguarded mode per section, and the full AI transcript is saved to the detailed report. In interviews, the interviewer can turn the assistant off per question and sees prompts as they occur, and HackerRank’s account manager changes the guarded or unguarded default.
HackerRank’s pricing page lists the agentic IDE on every paid plan, while its help center says the assistant is “part of the AI Add-on”. Desktop App mode names Cluely, gives a High or Medium integrity rating and is also part of the AI Add-on.
Pros
- A large ready-made library, with 7,500+ questions
- The sheer number of ATS connectors, with 22+ enterprise ATS integrations on Enterprise
- Its own multi-model coding agent and agentic development environment inside its own IDE, with prompts visible to the interviewer
Cons
- HackerRank runs its own custom coding agent and agentic development environment, in place of the real Claude Code and Codex.
- Desktop App mode sits in the paid AI Add-on rather than the core product.
- No public technical manual is documented.
- No EU hosting option and no EU AI Act position are documented.
- SSO and SCIM sit on the Enterprise plan only.
Pricing
User reviews
HackerRank is rated 4.5 out of 5 on G2, 500+ reviews, checked October 26, 2026. HackerRank is rated 4.6 out of 5 on Capterra, 80+ reviews. On Trustpilot, 19 candidate reviews averaged 1.7 out of 5 on October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, AI-assisted interviews, AI-assisted tests, July 2026 release notes, checked September 30 and October 9, 2026. Head-to-heads: Codility vs HackerRank, HackerRank alternatives.
HackerEarth
HackerEarth combines technical assessments with hackathons and a developer community, which hiring teams use as a sourcing channel.
Best for
Hackathons and developer-community sourcing alongside assessment.
Key features
AI use and integrity
HackerEarth’s Smart Browser works at the operating-system level and blocks other applications during the test. No candidate-facing coding agent is documented in the pages we read.
Pros
- Hackathons and a developer community as a sourcing channel
- A large ready-made library
- A 30-day trial
Cons
- No candidate-facing coding agent is documented.
- No single reviewable risk rating is documented.
- HackerEarth’s science page lists no validity study, and the adverse impact study described in its validity guide dates from 2020 or earlier.
- No EU hosting option is documented, and HackerEarth’s trust center now requires secure access to read.
- HackerEarth’s prices sit on a page titled “Pricing With Discount”, and its main pricing page shows no plans.
Pricing
User reviews
HackerEarth is rated 4.5 out of 5 on G2, 600+ reviews, and 4.7 out of 5 on Capterra, 20+ reviews, both checked October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, trust center, checked September 30, October 9 and October 21, 2026. Head-to-head: Codility vs HackerEarth.
TestGorilla
TestGorilla sells one test library across technical and non-technical roles, with a free plan and paid plans counted in credits.
Best for
Screening technical and non-technical roles from one test library, with a free plan.
Key features
AI use and integrity
TestGorilla documents no policy for candidate AI use in coding tests and no operating-system-level detection of hidden apps.
Pros
- A free plan to start with
- One library for technical and non-technical roles
- SSO on every plan, including Free
Cons
- Coding runs in a built-in IDE. No VS Code or multi-file environment is documented.
- ATS integrations, the API, custom coding challenges and ID verification need the Plus plan.
- The number of credits included in Core and Plus is not published.
Pricing
User reviews
TestGorilla is rated 4.5 out of 5 on G2, 1,400+ reviews, and 4.1 out of 5 on Capterra, 200+ reviews, both checked October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, Microsoft SSO, checked October 9 and 26, 2026. Head-to-head: Codility vs TestGorilla.
iMocha
iMocha sells skills assessments across technical and non-technical categories, for hiring and for enterprise skills inventories.
Best for
Enterprise skills inventories across many skill categories, technical and non-technical.
Key features
AI use and integrity
iMocha’s AI-assisted coding assessment gives candidates a built-in AI Assistant that “won’t write the solution”, and iMocha assesses AI use separately from the code score. Proctoring is AI-enabled. No operating-system-level detection of hidden apps is documented.
Pros
- A wide library across technical and non-technical skills
- Named enterprise ATS integrations, including Workday and SAP SuccessFactors
- AI use reported separately from the code score
Cons
- iMocha runs its own built-in assistant in place of a production coding agent such as Claude Code or Codex.
- No VS Code environment is documented.
- No validation evidence is documented.
- Pricing is quote only.
- Primary hosting is in East US, with replication in Northern Europe. No EU hosting option is documented.
Pricing
User reviews
iMocha is rated 4.4 out of 5 on G2, 200+ reviews, and 4.5 out of 5 on Capterra, 30 reviews, both checked October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, AI-assisted coding, enterprise readiness, checked October 9, 19 and 26, 2026.
Coderbyte
Coderbyte sells coding assessments, take-home projects and live interviews, with a Pro plan that covers unlimited candidates and admins for one annual price.
Best for
Unlimited candidates and admins at a fixed annual price.
Key features
AI use and integrity
Coderbyte’s help center documents Codex or Claude Code in VS Code with the candidate’s own keys, or Coderbyte’s native AI chat and agent mode, in live interviews and take-home projects. The help pages do not document how the AI activity is recorded for the reviewer.
Pros
- One annual price for unlimited candidates and admins
- Codex and Claude Code in VS Code, for teams whose candidates already use them
Cons
- Candidates bring their own keys for Codex or Claude Code.
- No identity verification is documented.
- SSO and SCIM, ATS integrations and proctoring are paid add-ons.
- Coderbyte’s SOC 2 Type 2 report file is named “Coderbyte Draft Report SOC 2 Type 2 Final Report”, and no EU hosting is documented.
Pricing
User reviews
Coderbyte is rated 4.4 out of 5 on G2, 400+ reviews, and 4.5 out of 5 on Capterra, 40+ reviews, both checked October 26, 2026.
Sources: pricing, AI assistance in the IDE, security checklist, checked October 9 and 21, 2026. Head-to-head: Codility vs Coderbyte.
How do these platforms handle candidates who use AI?
Five of the seven platforms let candidates use AI inside the test. The five differ on three points: whether the candidate gets a production coding agent or the vendor’s own, the setup anyone needs, and the record the reviewer sees afterwards.
| Platform | Coding agent in the task | Real Claude Code and Codex, or the vendor’s own agent | Setup the company or candidate needs | AI activity recorded for the reviewer | Admin control | Operating-system detection of hidden apps | Identity verification | One reviewable risk rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codility | Yes: Claude Code and Codex | The real Claude Code and Codex, preconfigured in VS Code | None: no API key or login for the company or the candidate | Yes, every interaction saved to the candidate record | Per task in Screen and Skills Intelligence, per interview in Interview, plus an account-wide switch | A Desktop App designed to surface hidden overlay apps | Yes, on Custom | Yes, the Integrity Risk level |
| CodeSignal | Yes: Claude Code, Codex and Cursor | Not documented | For Cursor, the interviewer or the candidate signs in with their own account each time. Not documented for Claude Code and Codex | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented: proctoring runs in the browser | Yes: government ID, face match and human review | Yes, the Suspicion Score |
| HackerRank | Yes: its own multi-model assistant with Agent mode | Its own coding agent | The admin turns on the assistant; part of the AI Add-on | Interviewers see prompts as they occur, and tests save the full AI transcript in the detailed report | Guarded or unguarded mode per test section, and an off switch per question in interviews | Desktop App mode, part of the AI Add-on | A webcam photo for the hiring team to review, and an identity match by facial recognition in the AI Add-on. No government ID check is documented | Yes, a High or Medium rating |
| HackerEarth | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Smart Browser blocks other applications | Yes, with liveness prompts | Not documented |
| TestGorilla | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Yes, on Plus | Not documented |
| iMocha | Yes: its own built-in AI Assistant | Its own assistant | Not documented | AI use assessed separately from the code score | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
| Coderbyte | Yes: Codex, Claude Code or its native agent | The real Codex and Claude Code, on the candidate's own keys | The candidate supplies API keys | Not documented | An On, Off or Disabled interview default | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
Codility is the only platform in the table that documents the real Claude Code and Codex with nothing to set up and every interaction saved for the reviewer. CodeSignal documents the same agents. Its pages do not document whether candidates get the real agents or a CodeSignal version, or how the AI activity is recorded for the reviewer. For Cursor, the interviewer or the candidate signs in with their own Cursor account each time.
How much does a technical assessment platform cost?
On the entry plans that publish a price per unit, one assessed candidate costs between $4.95 and $15.80. Codility’s Starter plan costs $10 per invite, against $15.80 at CodeSignal and HackerRank. Every vendor sells a different unit: an invite, an attempt, a credit or unlimited use. The price of one assessed candidate on each entry plan is the closest like-for-like comparison.
| Platform | Plan | Annual price | Units included | Price per unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codility | Starter | $1,200 | 120 invites | $10.00 per invite |
| Scale | $6,000 | 300 invites | $20.00 per invite | |
| Custom | By quote | By quote | By quote | |
| CodeSignal | Build | $948 | 60 credits | $15.80 per credit |
| Grow | $5,748 | 420 credits | $13.69 per credit | |
| Pro | By quote | By quote | $20 per extra credit | |
| HackerRank | Starter | $948 | 60 attempts | $15.80 per attempt |
| Pro | $5,028 | 360 attempts | $13.97 per attempt | |
| Enterprise | By quote | By quote | By quote | |
| HackerEarth | Growth | $990 | 120 invites | $8.25 per invite |
| Scale | $3,990 | 300 invites | $13.30 per invite | |
| Coderbyte | Pro | $1,999 | Unlimited candidates and admins | Not per unit |
| Monthly | $1,188 a year at $99 a month | 20 invites a month | $4.95 per invite | |
| Pay as you go | $799 | 60 invites | $13.32 per invite | |
| TestGorilla | Core and Plus | From $215 and $520 a month, billed annually | Credits per plan not published | Not published |
| iMocha | All plans | By quote | Not published | Not published |
An invite covers one candidate, and an attempt covers one test sitting. A credit can cover a test or an add-on such as ID verification. Check what one unit buys before you compare.
How do you choose the right technical assessment platform?
Run these five checks with each vendor on your shortlist. For a longer list, use our 10-item evaluation checklist.
Decide where AI belongs in the job, then in the test
Start from the role. If your engineers build with coding agents, a test that bans them shows you less about the job than a test that allows them. Decide which tasks allow an agent and which keep it off. Then ask each vendor whether it lets you make that choice per test, per task or per question.
Ask what the integrity rating is built on, and who decides
Ask whether the proctoring runs in the browser or at the operating-system level, and on which plan. Ask whether one rating brings the evidence together, and whether the platform ever fails a candidate automatically. A person on your team should make the final decision.
Ask for the validity documentation and the adverse impact method
Ask for the technical manual or validation study, the names of the psychologists behind it and the method used to check adverse impact. Hand the documents to your assessment science or I-O psychology team if you have one, and to legal.
Test the environment on your own stack
Run one task in your own languages and frameworks. Check for a terminal, multi-file projects and running services such as a database, because those decide whether the task looks like the job. Then ask who builds the first task for each role, the vendor or your engineers, and how long one takes.
Compare the price per assessed candidate before the plan
Work out the price of one assessed candidate on the plan that includes the features you need, such as ATS integration, SSO and identity verification. Those features often sit on a higher tier than the entry plan. Ask what happens to unused invites if hiring slows.
Which platform should you shortlist? A decision tool
| If your main constraint is… | Shortlist | Because |
|---|---|---|
| A hiring decision you have to defend to a candidate, a regulator or a client | Codility | A deterministic score with no AI in it, reviewable evidence, a named I-O psychologist and assessment scientists |
| One standard for technical hiring across teams and regions | Codility | The same validated tasks and a deterministic score for every candidate in a role, with the AI activity and the integrity signals in one candidate record |
| Candidates should work with coding agents the way the job is done | Codility, then CodeSignal | The real Claude Code and Codex, preconfigured in the candidate's VS Code terminal with no API key or login, and the AI activity saved to the candidate record. CodeSignal documents Claude Code, Codex and Cursor in its agentic assessments |
| Early career and graduate volume that needs proctoring | Codility | The Desktop App and one Integrity Risk level with reviewable evidence |
| Live technical interviews on the same platform as the screen | Codility | Screen for screening and Interview for the technical interview, each also on its own. In Interview, the hiring decision stays with the interviewer, fully informed by every prompt, response and terminal command on the record |
| Pre-built certified assessments with a documented identity workflow | CodeSignal | Certified Assessments, with government ID, face match and human review |
| A large ready-made question library and the sheer number of ATS connectors | HackerRank | 7,500+ questions and 22+ enterprise ATS integrations |
| Hackathons as a sourcing channel | HackerEarth | Hackathon and developer-community programs |
| Unlimited candidates and admins at a fixed annual price | Coderbyte | $1,999 a year on the Pro plan |
FAQ
Codility Interview runs live technical interviews in a shared VS Code environment with a whiteboard and a full transcript, with AI allowed or turned off for each interview. The candidate and the interviewer share a terminal and can both work with Claude Code and Codex, next to sidecar services such as databases. The hiring decision stays with the interviewer, fully informed by every prompt, response and terminal command on the record. An async screen tests every applicant on the same task before anyone spends interview time. Codility Screen does that job. Interview also runs on its own, without a screen.
About the author
Christopher Greco is Head of Product Marketing at Codility, where he owns the positioning of Codility’s assessment products.
Book a 30-minute walkthrough of a Claude Code and Codex assessment
See a scored task with the candidate’s AI activity, the integrity signals and the deterministic score in one candidate record. After the walkthrough, your engineers can try a task themselves in a free trial arranged through Codility’s team.