Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 7 → 19 of 60
1 category · Named, not rankedCodeSubmit
7Judge labels
0First choices
1Negative labels
4 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
1 label, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. CodeSubmit was named 1 time in Technical hiring assessm, where HackerRank led with 17%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business21 of 61
0%6 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market31 of 71
0%1 label
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
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 CodeSubmit 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical hiring assessments | Talent acquisition | 0% | 31 of 71 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by HackerRank at 17% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, CodeSubmit held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Technical hiring assessm · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 16 → 28 of 67
EnterprisegoneNot named this edition; 0% in September 2026.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsNot ranked
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical hiring assessm | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 16 → 31 of 71 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 13 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated CodeSubmit across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated CodeSubmit across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained2 labelsNone
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative0 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative7 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.
“Best for Real-World Take-Home Projects: CodeSubmit ... is the top choice” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Technical hiring assessm · budget 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 CodeSubmit, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CodeSubmit was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CodeSubmit, over the 7 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CodeSubmit was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 CodeSubmit. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 7 of the 7 answers that named CodeSubmit and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
codesubmit.ioYour site5
utkrusht.ai5
g2.com4
compono.com3
hackerrank.com3
hiretruffle.com3
interviewcost.com3
testdome.com3
testgorilla.com3
blog.imocha.io2
Twenty-nine of the thirty-four domain citations in answers naming CodeSubmit came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
codesubmit.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, CodeSubmit takes 0% of first choices and HackerRank takes 17%.ShowHide
Search and answers
codesubmit.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, CodeSubmit takes 0% of first choices and HackerRank takes 17%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “coding assessment platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “technical assessment platforms”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 110 a month (“codesubmit”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 3,858 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 1,161 · 31 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 1,336
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 31 of 71 in technical hiring assessm
Segment leader
17%
HackerRank
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 7 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 7 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on codesubmit.io
400
subdomains included
Content
98
counted in the table below
Documentation
11
Product · Integration
0 · 12
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 85 | 0 | 2026-06-19 | ||
| Comparison | 6 | undated | |||
| News or press | 3 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 2 | 0 | 2022-11-07 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 2 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-06-19Sentinel integrity blog
- 2026-04-30Best countries for software engineers blog
- 2026-04-23Harness engineering blog
- 2026-04-14Struggle of junior developers in the ai age blog
- 2025-07-09Announcing codepair v2 blog
- 2024-03-05Coding assessment tools 2024 blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page codesubmit.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow CodeSubmit
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
CodeSubmit is its own company.ShowHide
The company
CodeSubmit is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Real engineering assessments for AI-ready teams.
- For
- engineering teams worldwide
- Price stated
- View pricing codesubmit.io
- Starting price
- 49 codesubmit.io/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Start free trial; Launch your first assessment in minutes. No credit card required. codesubmit.io
- Integrations claimed
- 11 codesubmit.io
- Customers named
- Audi
- Not stated on the pages read
- Certifications, hosting
What CodeSubmit's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: codesubmit.io, codesubmit.io/pricing, codesubmit.io/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of 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 CodeSubmit'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 CodeSubmit, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CodeSubmit by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where CodeSubmit is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name CodeSubmit, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.