§ 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.
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.
Vendor profile
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.
§ The record
HackerEarth and HiPeople are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| 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.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · HiPeople 84
8.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · HiPeople 60
2.2 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · HiPeople 62
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · HiPeople 58
0.9 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · HiPeople 62
0.7 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · HiPeople 66
0.7 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · HiPeople 35
0.4 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.
| 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% | 46 (F) | 61 (D) | -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.
§ Where next