§ The result
HackerRank leads Brainner on 6 of the 7 criteria.
HackerRank scores 55 and Brainner 46 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. HackerRank leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Brainner is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 HackerRank leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Brainner 53 to HackerRank 55. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Brainner 42, HackerRank 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 53% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, HackerRank 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 HackerRank is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Brainner | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · HackerRank 68
4.7 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · HackerRank 60
1.6 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · HackerRank 60
1.2 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · HackerRank 35
0.8 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · HackerRank 62
0.3 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · HackerRank 55
0.3 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 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 -8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 68 | -26 | -4.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 45 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 55 (F) | -9 | -8.8 |
§ 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 | Brainner | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner and HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 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