§ The result
HackerEarth leads Alooba by 8 points.
HackerEarth scores 46 and Alooba 38 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Alooba on Customer Documentation. The advantage HackerEarth holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 40, HackerEarth 55, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 38% of the weighted points HackerEarth gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
HackerEarth
HackerEarth is a technical-hiring platform that auto-scores coding assessments under AI proctoring, runs FaceCode live coding interviews with AI-generated summaries, and offers OnScreen, an AI video-avatar interviewer that scores candidates against a fixed rubric.
§ The record
Alooba and HackerEarth are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · HackerEarth 55
3.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · HackerEarth 35
2.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · HackerEarth 52
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · HackerEarth 42
0.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · HackerEarth 32
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · HackerEarth 56
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · HackerEarth 57
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 52 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 42 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 46 (F) | -8 | -7.7 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Alooba | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next