Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs impress.ai
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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
HackerEarth leads impress.ai by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, finishes on 46 and impress.ai, filed under Screening, on 38, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and impress.ai on Data Governance Disclosure. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 55, impress.ai 35 — and at a 20% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth5
- impress.ai2
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 35
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% 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, impress.ai under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2012 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight42% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55impress.ai354.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight66% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35impress.ai222.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight79% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42impress.ai321.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32impress.ai251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight94% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56impress.ai520.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52impress.ai550.4 weighted points to impress.ai
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57impress.ai580.1 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.5 — 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 +8 beside that +8.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus impress.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 35 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 22 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 38F | +8 | +8.5 |
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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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.