§ The result
HackerRank leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 separates HackerRank and Cognisess, both Assessment entries, by 25 points: 55 for HackerRank, 30 for Cognisess. Cognisess leads none of the 7 criteria, and HackerRank is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cognisess 20, HackerRank 68, 18% weight), is only 34% of the weighted advantage HackerRank builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
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
Cognisess and HackerRank are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · HackerRank 68
8.6 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · HackerRank 60
7.0 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · HackerRank 35
2.3 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · HackerRank 60
2.2 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · HackerRank 55
1.9 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · HackerRank 62
1.8 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · HackerRank 45
1.6 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -25 beside that -25.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 60 | -35 | -7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 68 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 35 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 45 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 55 (F) | -25 | -25.3 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | 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 |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 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 Cognisess and HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess 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