§ The result
HackerRank leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
HackerRank finishes 18 points clear of AmazingHiring under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 37 — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. HackerRank leads every one of the 7 criteria, AmazingHiring none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, AmazingHiring 30 to HackerRank 35. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 22, HackerRank 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage HackerRank 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
HackerRank
HackerRank is a technical skills assessment platform for developer hiring that uses coding tests, interviews, and AI-based features (question generation, ML plagiarism/AI-code detection, and image-analysis proctoring) to evaluate candidates.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HackerRank 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 HackerRank is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · HackerRank 68
8.3 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · HackerRank 60
5.0 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · HackerRank 60
1.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · HackerRank 45
1.4 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · HackerRank 62
0.8 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · HackerRank 35
0.8 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · HackerRank 55
0.8 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -18.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 60 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 68 | -46 | -8.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 45 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 55 (F) | -18 | -18.5 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 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