§ The result
Checkr leads HackerEarth on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Checkr, filed under Screening, finishes on 54 and HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, on 46, 8 points apart. HackerEarth is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Checkr takes 5, the remaining 2 are level, and the nearest of those 5 is Post-Market Monitoring, Checkr 50 to HackerEarth 42. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Checkr 70, HackerEarth 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
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
Checkr is filed under Screening 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 | Checkr | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · HackerEarth 55
3.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · HackerEarth 52
1.5 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · HackerEarth 56
1.2 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · HackerEarth 42
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · HackerEarth 57
0.9 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 55 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 56 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 46 (F) | +8 | +7.5 |
§ 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 | Checkr | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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