Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs HiPeople
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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
Concerning
Assessment
The result
HiPeople leads HackerEarth on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 15 points clear of HackerEarth inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 61 (D) against 46 (F). HiPeople takes all 7 criteria and HackerEarth none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, HackerEarth 32 to HiPeople 35. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 35, HiPeople 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth0
- HiPeople7
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 84
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% 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 HiPeople are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight58% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35HiPeople848.8 weighted points to HiPeople
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight72% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42HiPeople602.2 weighted points to HiPeople
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight82% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55HiPeople621.4 weighted points to HiPeople
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight88% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52HiPeople580.9 weighted points to HiPeople
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56HiPeople620.7 weighted points to HiPeople
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57HiPeople660.7 weighted points to HiPeople
- 7
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32HiPeople350.4 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus HiPeople, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 84 | -49 | -8.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 61D | -15 | -15.2 |
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 | HackerEarth | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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.