§ The result
2 points separate HackerRank and Criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, HackerRank edges Criteria by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 55 to 53. HackerRank leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Criteria leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Criteria 48, HackerRank 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 71% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
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
Criteria and HackerRank are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Criteria | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · HackerRank 68
3.6 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · HackerRank 60
1.6 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Criteria 62 · HackerRank 55
1.1 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · HackerRank 60
0.5 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · HackerRank 35
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · HackerRank 45
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · HackerRank 62
0.2 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Criteria minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 68 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 55 (F) | -2 | -2.4 |
§ 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 | Criteria | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 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 HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 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