§ The result
iMocha leads HackerEarth on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Assessment entries iMocha and HackerEarth at 56 and 46, a gap of 10 points. iMocha is ahead of HackerEarth on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at HackerEarth 32 to iMocha 38. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 52, iMocha 66) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (HackerEarth 55, iMocha 68), 27% of the weighted advantage iMocha builds across the 7 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
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
§ The record
HackerEarth and iMocha are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | HackerEarth | iMocha |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · iMocha 68
2.6 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · iMocha 66
2.1 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · iMocha 44
1.6 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · iMocha 64
1.0 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · iMocha 38
0.9 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · iMocha 48
0.7 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · iMocha 66
0.7 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus iMocha.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | iMocha | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 68 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 66 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -9.6 |
§ 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 | iMocha | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | 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; iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iMocha 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