Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Gloat vs HackerEarth
Gloat
Gloat is an AI-powered internal talent marketplace and "agentic HR" platform that matches an employer's existing employees to internal job openings, gigs, projects, mentorships, and learning based on inferred skills and career goals.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
1 point separates Gloat and HackerEarth.
Gloat (Sourcing) edges HackerEarth (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46. Gloat leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while HackerEarth leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, and HackerEarth holds it (Gloat 48, HackerEarth 55, 20% weight), worth 70% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Gloat4
- HackerEarth2
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation48 vs 55
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Gloat is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HackerEarth under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Gloat | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight31% of the movement so far
Gloat48HackerEarth551.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight50% of the movement so far
Gloat58HackerEarth520.9 weighted points to Gloat
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight66% of the movement so far
Gloat62HackerEarth560.7 weighted points to Gloat
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight79% of the movement so far
Gloat28HackerEarth320.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight91% of the movement so far
Gloat38HackerEarth350.5 weighted points to Gloat
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Gloat62HackerEarth570.4 weighted points to Gloat
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gloat minus HackerEarth, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Gloat | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 47F | 46F | +1 | +0.6 |
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 | Gloat | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 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 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gloat last reviewed
- August 2, 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.