§ The result
Findem leads HackerEarth on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Findem sits 12 points above HackerEarth under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 46 — with Findem filed under Sourcing and HackerEarth under Assessment. Findem leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so HackerEarth is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Findem leads is Customer Documentation, Findem 58 to HackerEarth 57. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Findem 83, HackerEarth 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 75% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
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
Findem 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, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · HackerEarth 35
8.6 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · HackerEarth 32
0.9 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · HackerEarth 52
0.8 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · HackerEarth 55
0.6 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · HackerEarth 56
0.5 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · HackerEarth 57
0.1 weighted points to Findem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Findem | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 35 | +48 | +8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 46 (F) | +12 | +11.5 |
§ 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 | Findem | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 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