§ The result
Ashby leads HackerEarth on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Ashby sits 10 points above HackerEarth under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 46 — with Ashby filed under ATS-integrated and HackerEarth under Assessment. Ashby leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so HackerEarth is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Ashby leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Ashby 58 to HackerEarth 52. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Ashby 62, HackerEarth 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HackerEarth under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · HackerEarth 35
4.9 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · HackerEarth 55
1.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · HackerEarth 32
1.5 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · HackerEarth 52
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · HackerEarth 56
0.7 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · HackerEarth 57
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 35 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 57 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 46 (F) | +10 | +10.1 |
§ 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 | Ashby | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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