Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs HighMatch
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
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
3 points separate HackerEarth and HighMatch.
Within the Assessment cohort, HackerEarth edges HighMatch by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of HackerEarth, with 1 level: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and HighMatch on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 55, HighMatch 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 58% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth4
- HighMatch2
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 45
- 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.
HackerEarth and HighMatch are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | HighMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2005 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight50% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55HighMatch452.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight73% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35HighMatch300.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight85% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56HighMatch600.5 weighted points to HighMatch
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight92% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32HighMatch300.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42HighMatch400.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57HighMatch580.1 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus HighMatch, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | HighMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 43F | +3 | +2.9 |
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 | HackerEarth | HighMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HighMatch 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.