| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical hiring assessments | Talent acquisition | 5% | 7 of 52 | 32% | 44 | criticized challenger |
| Candidate assessment | Talent acquisition | 0% | 13 of 101 | 12% | 17 | accepted challenger |
| Skills intelligence | Performance and talent management | 0% | 34 of 162 | 0% | 4 | under 10 labels · led by TalentGuard at 19% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Codility (structured, automated grading) or HackerEarth (large question bank, strong analytics).” MiniMax M2.5 · Candidate assessment · comparative prompt · first choice
“Tools like TestDome, Codility (for coders) ... are generally well-regarded when used correctly” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Candidate assessment · negative prompt · first choice
“Codility offers the best balance of capability, reputation, and price” Kimi K2 · Technical hiring assessm · direct prompt · first choice
“Often ranked as the best overall, especially for enterprise use.” Mistral Small · Technical hiring assessm · comparative prompt · first choice
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“it is often described as "quite pricey" ... Codility has had issues with "test integrity," where questions and answers are not sufficiently hidden from recruiters” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Technical hiring assessm · negative prompt · hard negative
“Opaque scoring: Candidates and reviewers criticize edge-case scoring and lack of transparency” MiniMax M2.5 · Technical hiring assessm · negative prompt · hard negative
“Why we recommend avoiding HackerRank or Codility (for now)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Technical hiring assessm · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“like HackerRank or Codility when using generic public questions) are easily solved by modern generative AI models” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Candidate assessment · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 157 of the 186 answers that named Codility and are not a share of its labels.
480 of the 556 domain citations in answers naming Codility came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Codility's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Codility, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at codility.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.
Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.