§ The result
HiredScore leads HackerEarth by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, HiredScore, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 52 and HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, on 46, 6 points apart. HiredScore leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while HackerEarth leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 35, HiredScore 55 — and at an 18% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage HiredScore holds across the 5 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
HiredScore
AI-driven talent orchestration layer that ranks and routes candidates within an existing ATS. Acquired by Workday in 2024.
§ The record
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, HiredScore under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerEarth | HiredScore |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · HiredScore 55
3.6 weighted points to HiredScore
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · HiredScore 65
2.0 weighted points to HiredScore
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · HiredScore 35
0.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · HiredScore 60
0.5 weighted points to HiredScore
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · HiredScore 55
0.4 weighted points to HiredScore
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · HiredScore 30
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · HiredScore 60
0.2 weighted points to HiredScore
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus HiredScore.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | HiredScore | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 65 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 55 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 52 (F) | -6 | -5.6 |
§ 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 | HiredScore | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 2 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; HiredScore has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 7 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiredScore sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 9 for HiredScore, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiredScore last reviewed
- May 21, 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