§ The result
4 points separate HackerEarth and Draup.
HackerEarth holds a 4-point edge over Draup under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. HackerEarth leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Draup leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Draup 28, HackerEarth 42, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HackerEarth under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · HackerEarth 42
1.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · HackerEarth 55
1.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · HackerEarth 32
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · HackerEarth 35
0.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · HackerEarth 52
0.3 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · HackerEarth 56
0.2 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Draup | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Draup | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup 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