§ 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.
Vendor profile
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.
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
Cangrade and HackerEarth are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| 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.
12% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · HackerEarth 42
1.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · HackerEarth 55
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · HackerEarth 57
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · HackerEarth 32
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · HackerEarth 52
0.3 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.
| 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% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -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.
§ Where next