HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › WeCP · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

WeCP

4Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

4 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. WeCP was named 3 times in Technical hiring assessm, where HackerRank led with 28%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business50 of 61

under the label threshold

Mid-market23 of 52

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In technical hiring assessm · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named WeCP for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Technical hiring assessments	Talent acquisition	0%	23 of 52	0%	3	under 10 labels · led by HackerRank at 28%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for WeCP yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated WeCP across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Claims the largest repository of technical questions (600,000+)” Mistral Small · Technical hiring assessm · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as WeCP, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and WeCP was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Codility4 of 41Not in the top three

CodeSignal3 of 41Not in the top three

HackerRank3 of 41Not in the top three

HackerEarth3 of 40Not in the top three

TestGorilla3 of 40Not in the top three

CoderPad2 of 40Not in the top three

DevSkiller2 of 40Not in the top three

Karat2 of 40Not in the top three

AbilityScreen1 of 40Not in the top three

Adaface1 of 40Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named WeCP. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 4 of the 4 answers that named WeCP and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

devskiller.com3

unstop.com3

woventeams.com3

codesignal.com2

codesubmit.io2

codility.com2

gitnux.org2

goodfit.so2

selecthub.com2

testtrick.com2

Twenty-three of the twenty-three domain citations in answers naming WeCP came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

devskiller.com/it/blog/technical-assessment-platforms3

unstop.com/blog/technical-assessment-platforms3

woventeams.com/post/the-most-effective-technical-assessment-for-job-interviews3

codesubmit.io/blog/coding-assessment-tools-20242

codility.com/pricing2

gitnux.org/best/technical-assessment-software2

goodfit.so/guides/best-coding-assessment-platforms2

selecthub.com/c/technical-assessment-tools2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

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 WeCP'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 WeCP, 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 wecp.ai 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.