Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs iCIMS
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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
iCIMS leads HackerEarth on 6 of the 7 criteria.
iCIMS scores 55 and HackerEarth 46 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. iCIMS leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so HackerEarth is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 iCIMS leads is Human Oversight Design, HackerEarth 56 to iCIMS 58. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, iCIMS 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 68% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth0
- iCIMS6
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 68
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, iCIMS under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2000 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight68% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35iCIMS685.9 weighted points to iCIMS
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight79% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32iCIMS380.9 weighted points to iCIMS
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight86% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55iCIMS580.6 weighted points to iCIMS
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight93% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52iCIMS560.6 weighted points to iCIMS
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57iCIMS620.4 weighted points to iCIMS
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56iCIMS580.2 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus iCIMS, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 68 | -33 | -5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 55F | -9 | -8.7 |
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 | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 3 | 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; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS last reviewed
- June 7, 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.