§ The result
1 point separates Crosschq and HackerEarth.
Crosschq holds a 1-point edge over HackerEarth under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Crosschq leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while HackerEarth leads 3, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — HackerEarth takes Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20%, Crosschq 50 to HackerEarth 55, 65% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Data Governance Disclosure, Crosschq 58 to HackerEarth 52.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
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
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, HackerEarth under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · HackerEarth 55
1.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · HackerEarth 52
0.9 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · HackerEarth 56
0.7 weighted points to Crosschq
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · HackerEarth 35
0.5 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · HackerEarth 57
0.4 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · HackerEarth 32
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · HackerEarth 42
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.1 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 +1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 46 (F) | +1 | +1.0 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 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; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 82 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 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