§ The result
2 points separate HackerEarth and Fountain.
HackerEarth holds a 2-point edge over Fountain under rubric v1.0, 46 to 44, across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Fountain on Data Governance Disclosure. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Fountain 50, HackerEarth 55, 20% weight), is only 35% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
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
Fountain is filed under Screening 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 | Fountain | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fountain 50 · HackerEarth 55
1.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fountain 30 · HackerEarth 35
0.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fountain 55 · HackerEarth 52
0.4 weighted points to Fountain
8% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fountain 52 · HackerEarth 57
0.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fountain 30 · HackerEarth 32
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fountain 58 · HackerEarth 56
0.2 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fountain 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 -2.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fountain minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Fountain | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 46 (F) | -2 | -2.1 |
§ 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 | Fountain | 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% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fountain 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