Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs HiredScore
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
HiredScore
AI-driven talent orchestration layer that ranks and routes candidates within an existing ATS. Acquired by Workday in 2024.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth2
- HiredScore5
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 55
- 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 is filed under Assessment AI, HiredScore under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight46% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35HiredScore553.6 weighted points to HiredScore
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight71% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55HiredScore652.0 weighted points to HiredScore
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight81% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42HiredScore350.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight87% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56HiredScore600.5 weighted points to HiredScore
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight93% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52HiredScore550.4 weighted points to HiredScore
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight97% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32HiredScore300.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57HiredScore600.2 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 46F | 52F | -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.