Most lists of Codility alternatives rank a dozen tools that grade the same thing Codility grades: code written under test conditions. That's a real signal, but switching vendors doesn't change it. The fork that matters is between a timed test and watching someone work. I run an assessment company and my product is one of the eight below, so read with that bias in mind. I've tried to be fair anyway, because for plenty of teams the honest Codility alternative is a cheaper timed test, not mine. For each tool you'll get the format, the price where the vendor publishes one, and the thing it can't see.
Skillvee is a 60-minute "day at work" simulation that replaces the recruiter phone screen and the first interview round. The candidate solves a real challenge, talks to AI teammates to get the information they need, and defends their decisions on a call, while the screen is recorded. It runs for any role whose work happens on a computer, engineering included, and it measures how someone works: communication, collaboration, agency, AI leverage, problem-solving, quality of output, and time management.
Why do teams look for a Codility alternative?
The reasons are real and usually fair. Seat-based pricing gets expensive as the hiring team grows. Tasks can feel rigid, closer to a certification exam than the job, and completion drops when candidates hit a puzzle they'd never touch at work. Some teams just want faster support.
Any of the swaps below will fix some of that. What a different timed test won't fix is the newer complaint: candidates bring a model to the test whether you invite it or not, and the score stops telling you who can do the work. If you're one step earlier in this search, the HackerRank alternatives guide splits the category into the three things buyers mean by it.
Codility alternatives compared
Prices came off each vendor's own pricing page on 18 September 2026 (TestGorilla and CoderPad re-read and corrected on 12 October). Where I could not confirm a published figure, I say so instead of guessing.
| Tool | Format | Best for | Starting price | What it can't see |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codility (baseline) | Timed coding tests | Structured algorithmic screens | Starter $1,200/yr | Anything that isn't code |
| HackerRank | Timed coding tests, plus live interviews | Screening engineers at volume | Starter $79/mo, billed annually | How someone works when the problem isn't bounded |
| CodeSignal | Skills assessments, live interviews, AI interviewer | Scores you can compare across candidates | Build $79/mo, billed annually | Collaboration and judgment, in the automated screen |
| TestGorilla | Multi-role test library | Req lists that run well past engineering | Free tier; Core from $215/mo, billed annually | How answers turn into work on a messy task |
| Adaface | Scenario-based skill tests | Small teams that want a published price | Starter $500/yr | How someone goes and gets missing context |
| TestDome | Pre-made skill tests, pay per candidate | Hiring in bursts | From $7 per candidate | Anything outside the test window |
| CoderPad | Live pairing, plus take-homes on higher plans | Rounds where a human is the signal | Starter $80/mo, billed annually | Little, if your interviewer is good; the cost is their hour |
| Karat | Outsourced live technical interviews | Buying interviewer hours instead of spending yours | Not published | Roles outside engineering |
| Skillvee | Observed 60-minute work simulation, AI allowed | Multi-role and AI-era hiring | From $99/mo billed annually, about $5 to $8 per simulation | It's not a cheap first gate for thousands of applicants |
A fairness note on that last column. For the test vendors it describes the automated screen, which is what these products mostly get bought for. HackerRank and CodeSignal both also sell live interview products, and a human on that call can judge communication fine. And Codility deserves credit on AI: every plan now includes an AI copilot with reviewable activity, so you can see how a candidate used it inside the test.
The 8 Codility alternatives, one by one
1. HackerRank
HackerRank is the name most teams shortlist first. It has a huge question library and years of enterprise history, and it's built for filtering engineering applicants at volume. It also sells a live interview product, so a human can pick up where the automated test stops.
It fits best when you're screening hundreds of engineers and want the deepest library. Starter is $79 a month billed annually for 60 candidate attempts a year.
What it can't see: the same thing Codility can't. A timed test grades code written under test conditions, so how someone asks, revises and decides never reaches the score.
2. CodeSignal
CodeSignal sells three things for hiring: skills assessments, live technical interviews in a shared IDE, and an AI Interviewer that runs structured, adaptive interviews across roles. The IDE is about the most polished in the category, and the assessments are built to produce standardized scores you can compare across candidates. If your hiring managers argue about whose "strong yes" counts more, that consistency is worth paying for.
Build starts at $79 a month, billed annually. I went deeper on it in the CodeSignal alternatives piece, which sorts the category by what job the AI is doing while your candidate works.
What it can't see: in the automated screen, collaboration and judgment under ambiguity. A score compares outputs. It doesn't show how the candidate got there.
3. TestGorilla
TestGorilla goes wide rather than deep. The library runs past 350 tests and covers coding alongside cognitive ability, personality and job simulations, which makes it the obvious pick when your req list includes sales, support and ops as well as engineering. There's a free tier, and Core starts from $215 a month billed annually, so you can try it before anyone signs anything.
For a recruiter running six roles across four functions, one vendor for all of them is a real simplification, and I don't want to undersell that.
What it can't see: how a stack of test answers turns into work on a real task, with a teammate who's slow to reply and a deadline that moved.
4. Adaface
Adaface runs 40-minute skill tests built on scenario-based questions, with a library of 500+ tests across programming, cognitive, business, finance and language skills. The pitch is on-the-job competence over trivia, and the scenario framing does help. It's also one of the few vendors publishing a number at the small end: Starter is $500 a year.
If you're a small team hiring a handful of people a year and you want something better than a take-home you wrote yourself, it's worth a trial.
What it can't see: how a candidate gathers information nobody gave them. A scenario question hands over the context. Real work makes you go get it.
5. TestDome
TestDome is the pay-as-you-go option. There's no subscription: you buy packs of candidate invites that never expire, and the price starts from $7 per candidate on the biggest pack. The library covers programming plus a decent range of non-programming skills.
If you hire in bursts and resent paying for seats through the quiet months, this is the cleanest fix on the list.
What it can't see: anything outside the test window. You get an answer sheet, not a working session.
6. CoderPad
CoderPad is built for live pairing. Your engineer and the candidate share a pad that supports 99+ languages and frameworks, with playback afterwards, and the Team plan adds take-homes and auto-scored screens. Starter is $80 a month billed annually.
The signal comes from the human on the call, which is also the catch. A good interviewer sees plenty, and every candidate costs you an engineer's hour. I'd use it for a later round rather than the first screen.
What it can't see: less than any test here, as long as your interviewer is good. The limit is the calendar, not the format.
7. Karat
Karat sells interviewer hours instead of software. Its trained interviewers run technical interviews on your behalf with a standardized method, so your engineers stop losing afternoons to first rounds. It does not publish pricing, which fits a service business.
If engineering interview load is the thing that's actually breaking, and you're comfortable with an outside team running a consistent round, Karat goes at that problem more directly than any test does.
What it can't see: roles outside engineering. For a recruiter whose req list includes sales and customer success, it covers one family out of several.
8. Skillvee
This one's mine, so discount accordingly. It's the only entry here that doesn't grade a test. The candidate spends an hour doing a version of the job: they get a challenge, chase missing context from AI teammates, use AI the way they would use it at work, and defend their decisions on a call at the end. You watch the recording and see how they worked, not just what they handed in.
Because it runs for any computer-based role, the same format covers an engineer, an account executive and a PM. It starts at $99 a month billed annually, roughly $5 to $8 per simulation depending on tier, and the plans are on the pricing page.
What it can't see: it is not built as a cheap floor for thousands of applicants. At true top-of-funnel scale, you'd still put a timed test in front of it.
Honorable mentions
HackerEarth, Coderbyte and Qualified run timed coding tests in the same mould as HackerRank. iMocha, Vervoe and Mercer Mettl are multi-role libraries in TestGorilla's lane, and Geektastic and CodeSubmit do longer project-style tasks. One housekeeping note: DevSkiller became SkillPanel in September 2025 and now maps the skills of people you already employ. If a list still recommends it for screening applicants, nobody's touched that page in a year.
Codility vs BlueOptima
It comes up in searches more than the products justify, so here's the short version. BlueOptima is developer analytics: it reads version-control history to measure the output of engineers you already employ. It also sells a hiring product, Predictive Assessment, where candidates solve coding problems and get scored on their approach against a baseline calibrated to your own developers. No published price, and the site doesn't say whether candidates may use AI. Treat it as a coding test bolted to an analytics suite, not a Codility swap.
What do the timed tests all miss?
Read the format column of the table top to bottom and a pattern shows up. Five of the eight grade an artifact produced under test conditions, two put a human on a call, and one watches the work. Swapping Codility for HackerRank changes the library and the bill. It doesn't change what you learn about the person.
The things your last regretted hire failed on, like communication, agency or judgment, only show up while someone works. And in 2026 there's the AI problem on top. Vendors keep shipping proctoring and lockdown browsers to defend the test, and I think that is the wrong fight. I wrote the long version in the AI-cheating piece: detection is an arms race you re-lose with every model release. The other route is to hand the candidate the model on purpose and score what they do with it, which I broke into six observable behaviors. The CodeSignal vs HackerRank breakdown walks the same reframe from the two-vendor angle.
Which cheap Codility alternative is worth it?
If the invoice is the whole complaint, you can fix it this afternoon. Codility's Starter plan lists at $1,200 a year. The cheapest paths under it are TestDome, from $7 per candidate with nothing to sign, Adaface at $500 a year, and TestGorilla's free tier if your volume fits inside it. HackerRank Starter, $79 a month billed annually, works out to $948 a year. CodeSignal's Build plan, $79 a month billed annually, also comes in under Codility's entry price. CoderPad Starter comes in under it too, and TestGorilla Core costs more than double.
Cheap per seat isn't the same as cheap per hire, though. The expensive line is usually the engineer hours spent interviewing people the screen let through. Skillvee starts at $99 a month billed annually, roughly $5 to $8 per simulation, and it earns that when it replaces the phone screen and first round rather than adding a stage in front of them. Published prices move, so check the vendor pages before you commit.
What's the best Codility alternative for your situation?
For volume screening, HackerRank or CodeSignal. Both are built to filter hundreds of engineering applicants, and CodeSignal's comparable scores help when several hiring managers read them. TestDome does the budget version of the same job.
For AI-era hiring, honestly, none of the timed tests. If candidates solve your test with a model and you can't tell who can work, a better lockdown won't fix it. That's the case for Skillvee, or for any format that allows AI and watches what the candidate does with it.
Multi-role hiring is where it gets interesting for a recruiter. TestGorilla gives you one cheap library across functions. Skillvee shows you the work itself across those same functions. Adaface sits between them for small teams.
For live pairing, CoderPad if your engineers run the round, Karat if you'd rather they didn't.
When is Codility still the right call?
If your bottleneck is raw volume, thousands of applicants and a need for a cheap algorithmic floor, a timed coding test still does that job, and Codility is a competent version of it. If that's the whole problem, you don't need to switch categories. Shop within the one you're in, on library fit, candidate experience and price for your volume.
The category switch earns its keep when the expensive problem lives after the screen: onsites spent on people who test well and work badly, or senior engineers giving five-plus hours per hire to interviews a pre-onsite signal could have front-run. That's when watching someone work beats grading their output.
Where does the simulation approach get hard?
It isn't a free lunch, and I'd rather you hear that from me. An observed 60-minute session costs more per candidate than an automated test, so at true top-of-funnel scale you'll still want a cheap first gate in front of it. It also lives or dies on task design. A sloppy simulated task measures whether someone follows instructions, not whether they can think, which is the same failure as a bad Codility question, just pricier to run.
So most Codility alternatives are lateral moves: nicer UI, friendlier invoice, same blind spots. If you want hiring outcomes to change, the question isn't which coding test. It's whether to keep grading tests at all, or start watching people work.