§ The result
HackerEarth leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, finishes on 46 and AmazingHiring, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 9 points apart. HackerEarth takes all 7 criteria and AmazingHiring none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, AmazingHiring 30 to HackerEarth 32. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 35, HackerEarth 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
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
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HackerEarth under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · HackerEarth 55
4.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · HackerEarth 35
2.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · HackerEarth 42
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · HackerEarth 56
1.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · HackerEarth 57
0.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · HackerEarth 32
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · HackerEarth 52
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 55 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 46 (F) | -9 | -9.4 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 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