§ The result
HackerRank leads Draup on all 7 criteria.
HackerRank sits 13 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 42 — with HackerRank filed under Assessment and Draup under Sourcing. HackerRank leads every one of the 7 criteria, Draup none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Draup 54 to HackerRank 55. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, HackerRank 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 7 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
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HackerRank under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only HackerRank is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · HackerRank 68
6.3 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · HackerRank 60
2.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · HackerRank 45
2.0 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · HackerRank 35
1.5 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · HackerRank 62
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · HackerRank 60
0.2 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · HackerRank 55
0.1 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -13.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Draup | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 68 | -35 | -6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 55 (F) | -13 | -13.0 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | 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 |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup and HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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