§ The result
HackerEarth leads Fetcher by 9 points.
HackerEarth scores 46 and Fetcher 37 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Fetcher takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 6 for HackerEarth, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Fetcher 27, HackerEarth 55) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 60% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
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
Fetcher 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 | Fetcher | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · HackerEarth 55
5.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · HackerEarth 35
1.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · HackerEarth 32
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · HackerEarth 42
0.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · HackerEarth 56
0.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · HackerEarth 52
0.4 weighted points to Fetcher
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · HackerEarth 57
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 55 | -28 | -5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 46 (F) | -9 | -8.9 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 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