Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Infor Talent Science
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
Infor Talent Science
Infor Talent Science is a cloud-based pre-hire behavioral and cognitive assessment platform. It scores candidates against patented machine-learning 'Performance Profiles' built from the behavior and performance data of an employer's successful incumbents, and gives hiring teams fit scores, recommendations and interview questions that are used to rank and route applicants.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
3 points separate Infor Talent Science and HackerEarth.
Within the Assessment cohort, Infor Talent Science edges HackerEarth by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Infor Talent Science: Infor Talent Science is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and HackerEarth on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HackerEarth 35, Infor Talent Science 42, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth1
- Infor Talent Science6
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Infor Talent Science are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Infor Talent Science |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2002 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight29% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Infor Talent Science421.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight46% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Infor Talent Science570.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight62% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Infor Talent Science500.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight76% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Infor Talent Science580.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight86% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Infor Talent Science350.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Infor Talent Science450.4 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Infor Talent Science600.2 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Infor Talent Science, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Infor Talent Science | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 49F | -3 | -2.9 |
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 | Infor Talent Science | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 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; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Infor Talent Science last reviewed
- September 25, 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.