§ The result
HiringBranch leads HackerEarth by 6 points.
HiringBranch finishes 6 points ahead of HackerEarth under rubric v1.0, 52 to 46, both scored as Assessment entries. HiringBranch leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while HackerEarth leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, HiringBranch 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 65% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
§ The record
HackerEarth and HiringBranch 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 | HiringBranch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2012 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · HiringBranch 60
4.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · HiringBranch 60
1.0 weighted points to HiringBranch
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · HiringBranch 64
0.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · HiringBranch 52
0.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · HiringBranch 35
0.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · HiringBranch 55
0.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · HiringBranch 40
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 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 -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus HiringBranch.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | HiringBranch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 60 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 64 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 52 (F) | -6 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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