Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Gloat vs HackerRank
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
HackerRank
HackerRank is a technical skills assessment platform for developer hiring that uses coding tests, interviews, and AI-based features (question generation, ML plagiarism/AI-code detection, and image-analysis proctoring) to evaluate candidates.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
HackerRank leads Gloat by 8 points.
HackerRank scores 55 and Gloat 47 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Gloat takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 4 for HackerRank, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Gloat 38, HackerRank 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Gloat2
- HackerRank4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency38 vs 68
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Gloat is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HackerRank under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Gloat | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2009 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight55% of the movement so far
Gloat38HackerRank685.4 weighted points to HackerRank
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight79% of the movement so far
Gloat48HackerRank602.4 weighted points to HackerRank
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
Gloat28HackerRank351.1 weighted points to HackerRank
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight94% of the movement so far
Gloat58HackerRank550.4 weighted points to Gloat
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight98% of the movement so far
Gloat42HackerRank450.4 weighted points to HackerRank
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Gloat62HackerRank600.2 weighted points to Gloat
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gloat minus HackerRank, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Gloat | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 68 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 47F | 55F | -8 | -8.5 |
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 | Gloat | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gloat last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 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.