Independent resource. Not affiliated with SHRM, ANSI/ISO, any ATS provider, or recruiting agency. Figures are derived from publicly available 2026 benchmark data (SHRM, BLS OEWS, published industry reports) and are intended as ranges, not quotes. Validate against your organisation's own loaded rates before budgeting.
Per-platform cost

What Codility costs in 2026: real per-invite math.

Codility prices by assessment invite: Starter $1,200/yr (120 invites), Scale $500/mo or about $5,000/yr billed annually (300 invites), Custom quote. Here is the verified breakdown and the per-invite amortisation that matters for cost-per-hire.

The short answer

Codility publishes self-service pricing on an invite-based model. Starter is $1,200/yr (annual billing only) for up to 120 assessment invites a year and 1 platform user. Scale is $500/mo, or about $5,000/yr billed annually (roughly 17 percent off), for up to 300 invites a year (25 a month) and 3 platform users. Custom is quote-only for enterprise volume, unlimited users, SSO, integrations and dedicated support. As of June 2026, verified against Codility’s published pricing page.

Codility pricing (2026).

Codility meters usage by assessment invite rather than by credit or seat. Each paid plan includes a capped number of invites, and one invite covers a candidate running a screening assessment or a live coding interview. Pricing tracked through codility.com/pricing.

PlanPrice (2026)Invites / yearPlatform usersBilling
Starter$1,200/yr1201Annual only
Scale$500/mo (~$5,000/yr billed annually)300 (25/mo)3Monthly or annual
CustomQuote (contact sales)CustomUnlimitedAnnual contract

Starter carries a limited task library and basic proctoring; Scale adds a comprehensive and customisable task library, AI follow-up questions, premium analytics and 3 platform users; Custom adds unlimited users, premium proctoring, SSO/SAML, ATS integrations, Skills Intelligence, dedicated Customer Success and professional services. Codility does not publish a Custom number; treat any third-party enterprise figure as a negotiated aggregate, not a list price.

Per-invite amortisation math.

Because the platform bills by invite, the honest cost metric is annual plan price divided by the included invites. The result has a counterintuitive shape: the cheaper Starter plan has the lower per-invite cost, because Scale’s premium buys seats and features rather than a volume discount.

PlanAnnual costInvites / yearPer-invite cost
Starter$1,200120$10
Scale (billed annually)~$5,000300~$16.70
Scale (billed monthly)$6,000300$20
CustomNegotiatedCustom (1,000s)Drops with volume

So Starter is the cheaper plan per invite at $10, and Scale runs $16.70 to $20 per invite depending on billing cadence. You move up to Scale for the 3 platform users, custom task building, AI follow-up questions and analytics, not to lower the per-invite rate. The per-invite price only falls below the Starter $10 once you negotiate a high-volume Custom contract.

Codility vs HackerRank vs CodeSignal on price.

The three self-service coding-assessment platforms have largely converged on price. Codility sits in the middle at both the entry and the mid tier.

TierCodilityHackerRankCodeSignal
EntryStarter $1,200/yr (120 invites)Starter $1,990/yrBuild $948/yr
MidScale ~$5,000/yr (300 invites)Pro $4,490/yrGrow $5,748/yr
EnterpriseCustom quoteCustom quotePro custom quote

HackerRank and CodeSignal figures are the verified self-service list prices from our HackerRank cost and CodeSignal cost pages. Because each vendor meters differently (Codility by invite, HackerRank by attempts, CodeSignal by credits), compare on your own annual candidate volume rather than on tier names: convert each plan to a cost-per-candidate at your real throughput.

The cost-justified hiring-volume threshold.

The right question is whether Codility is cheaper than the engineer-hours it replaces. An auto-scored screen saves roughly 10 to 15 minutes of reviewer time per submission versus a manually scored coding exercise. At a senior IC loaded rate of about $185 to $220 per hour, that is $30 to $50 per assessment in engineer-time saving, well above the $10 to $20 per-invite platform cost.

On that arithmetic Starter at $1,200 per year pays for itself once you run roughly 25 to 40 reviewed assessments a year, within its 120 included invites. Scale at about $5,000 pays back at roughly 100 to 170 reviewed assessments, within its 300 invites. Below about 50 assessments a year, a free live-coding tier or a manual approach is usually the cheaper route. The math improves as engineer loaded rates climb and the scoring is actually used to filter expensive onsite stages.

A useful test: count actual completed assessments in the previous 12 months and multiply by your reviewer-time saving per assessment in dollars (roughly $30 to $50 at typical senior IC loaded rate). If the result exceeds your Codility annual cost, the platform pays for itself. If not, drop to Starter, a cheaper live-coding tool, or a manual approach.

Where Codility makes most sense versus alternatives.

Codility makes most cost-justified sense for teams that run real volume on standardised, validated screening assessments and want a single platform spanning auto-scored screens and live coding interviews. Its capped-invite model makes the spend predictable, which mid-market finance teams tend to prefer over open-ended credit balances.

It makes less sense for teams that primarily run live coding interviews (cheaper on a live-coding-only tool like CoderPad), for teams that will not use the standardised scoring as a structured filter, and for low-volume teams under the per-invite payback threshold. The right evaluation is a short pilot that measures whether the scoring actually reduces expensive onsite volume, then a decision on real data rather than a feature-comparison spreadsheet.

Cross-references.

For HackerRank cost (the direct competitor), see the HackerRank cost page. For CodeSignal (credit-based model), see the CodeSignal cost page. For Karat (outsourced interviews, different model), see the Karat cost page. For CoderPad (cheaper live-coding-only), see the CoderPad cost page. For the broader tooling cost framework, see the tools page.

Run your own numbers.

Add Codility platform cost to your calculator scenario and see per-hire impact.

Run the calculator

Frequently asked questions

What does Codility cost in 2026?
Codility publishes self-service pricing on an invite-based model. Starter is $1,200 per year (annual billing only) for up to 120 assessment invites a year and 1 platform user. Scale is $500 per month, or about $5,000 per year billed annually (roughly 17 percent off the monthly rate), for up to 300 invites a year (25 a month) and 3 platform users. Custom is quote-only for enterprise volume, unlimited users, SSO, integrations and dedicated support. Verified against codility.com/pricing as of June 2026.
How does the Codility invite model work?
Codility meters usage by assessment invite rather than by credit or by seat. Each plan includes a capped number of invites (120 a year on Starter, 300 a year on Scale), and one invite covers a candidate running a screening assessment or a live coding interview session. This is a different model from CodeSignal, which bills by a shared credit balance spent across assessments and AI-interviewer sessions. The practical metric for Codility is cost per invite, which is what your per-candidate platform cost actually comes down to.
Is Codility cheaper than HackerRank or CodeSignal?
It sits in the middle at the published self-service tiers. Codility Starter at $1,200 per year undercuts HackerRank Starter ($1,990) but costs more than CodeSignal Build ($948). At the mid tier, Codility Scale at about $5,000 per year billed annually sits between HackerRank Pro ($4,490) and CodeSignal Grow ($5,748). The three have largely converged on price, so the decision usually turns on feature fit, task-library depth and integration needs rather than headline dollars, and all three reserve high volume and advanced features for custom enterprise quotes.
What is the per-invite cost on each Codility plan?
Starter is $1,200 for 120 invites, which is $10 per invite. Scale billed annually is about $5,000 for 300 invites, which is roughly $16.70 per invite ($20 per invite if you pay monthly at $500 a month). Counterintuitively the cheaper Starter plan has the lower per-invite cost; Scale's premium buys 3 platform users, a larger and customisable task library, AI follow-up questions and premium analytics, not a per-invite discount. The per-invite price only falls below the Starter rate on a custom Custom-tier contract once annual volume is high enough.
What does the Custom (enterprise) tier add and what does it cost?
Custom is the quote-only tier. It adds custom invite volume, unlimited platform users, premium proctoring, SSO/SAML, ATS integrations (Greenhouse, Lever, Workday and similar), Skills Intelligence, dedicated Customer Success and professional services such as assessment validation and programme design. Codility does not publish a Custom number. Third-party procurement notes put enterprise contracts in the low five to low six figures a year depending on volume, but treat any single figure as a negotiated aggregate, not a list price.
What about the engineer-hour cost of using Codility?
As with any auto-scored assessment platform, the cost case rests on reviewer time saved. An auto-scored screen cuts first-pass reviewer time to roughly 10 to 15 minutes per submission against 25 to 35 minutes for a manually scored coding exercise. At a senior IC loaded rate of about $185 to $220 per hour (see our technical phone interview cost page), that is $30 to $50 saved per assessment, which is large relative to the $10 to $20 per-invite platform cost once you run real volume.
When is Codility not worth the cost?
Below roughly 50 reviewed assessments a year the per-invite amortisation makes a dedicated platform hard to justify against a manual approach or a free live-coding tool. Teams that primarily run synchronous live coding rather than auto-scored screening can spend less on a live-coding-only tool like CoderPad. And teams that will not actually use the standardised scoring to filter expensive onsite stages are paying for signal design they are not capturing the value of. The right test is a short pilot that measures whether the scoring reduces onsite volume, then a decision on real data.

Related reading

Updated 2026-06-09