§ The result
1 point separates HackerEarth and hackajob.
HackerEarth (Assessment) edges hackajob (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. hackajob and HackerEarth each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split HackerEarth holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (hackajob 20, HackerEarth 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 82% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
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
hackajob 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, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | hackajob | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
hackajob 20 · HackerEarth 35
2.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
hackajob 60 · HackerEarth 55
1.0 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
hackajob 58 · HackerEarth 52
0.9 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
hackajob 38 · HackerEarth 42
0.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
hackajob 60 · HackerEarth 57
0.2 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
hackajob 55 · HackerEarth 56
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 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 -1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 35 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 32 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -1.2 |
§ 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 | hackajob | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 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 81 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 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