§ The result
Gem leads HackerEarth on all 7 criteria.
Gem scores 55 and HackerEarth 46 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Gem leads every one of the 7 criteria, HackerEarth none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Gem 58 to HackerEarth 55. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Gem 66, HackerEarth 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Gem holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Gem
Gem is an AI-first recruiting platform combining a talent CRM, AI sourcing and outreach automation, candidate engagement, and a newer applicant tracking system with AI-powered application review and ranking.
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
Gem 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 | Gem | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Gem 66 · HackerEarth 35
5.6 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Gem 57 · HackerEarth 52
0.8 weighted points to Gem
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Gem 58 · HackerEarth 55
0.6 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Gem 61 · HackerEarth 56
0.6 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Gem 47 · HackerEarth 42
0.6 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Gem 35 · HackerEarth 32
0.4 weighted points to Gem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Gem 62 · HackerEarth 57
0.4 weighted points to Gem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.0 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 +9.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gem minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Gem | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 66 | 35 | +31 | +5.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 61 | 56 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 46 (F) | +9 | +9.0 |
§ 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 | Gem | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Gem has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 2 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 Gem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Gem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gem 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