Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Cangrade vs HackerEarth
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
1 point separates HackerEarth and Cangrade.
Within the Assessment cohort, HackerEarth edges Cangrade by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. Cangrade takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 3 for HackerEarth, whose share includes Post-Market Monitoring, and 2 are level. One criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, is both the widest raw gap (Cangrade 32, HackerEarth 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Cangrade2
- HackerEarth3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Post-Market Monitoring32 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Post-Market Monitoring12% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Cangrade and HackerEarth are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Cangrade | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight43% of the movement so far
Cangrade32HackerEarth421.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight64% of the movement so far
Cangrade52HackerEarth550.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Customer Documentation
8% weight79% of the movement so far
Cangrade62HackerEarth570.4 weighted points to Cangrade
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
Cangrade30HackerEarth320.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Cangrade54HackerEarth520.3 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus HackerEarth, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 46F | -1 | -1.4 |
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 | Cangrade | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 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.