§ The result
3 points separate HackerEarth and CodeSignal.
HackerEarth holds a 3-point edge over CodeSignal under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and CodeSignal on Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (CodeSignal 38, HackerEarth 55) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 64% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
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
CodeSignal and HackerEarth are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · HackerEarth 55
3.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · HackerEarth 35
1.8 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · HackerEarth 32
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · HackerEarth 42
0.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · HackerEarth 57
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · HackerEarth 52
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · HackerEarth 56
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 35 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 46 (F) | -3 | -3.2 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal 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